The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Pornographically Low-Hanging Fruit
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Four members of Congress recently urged the Department of Justice to prosecute producers and distributors of pornography using existing obscenity laws. Three Supreme Court cases in the late sixties and early seventies awarded pornography general constitutional protection, but stare decisis and contemporary public opinion are at odds, especially with regards to children. Says one of the congressmen urging action:

“Anyone connected to the Internet – including children – has on-demand access to billions of photos and videos of people having sex or committing other lewd acts,” Banks stated.

“The prevalence of pornography in our society has consequences, especially for our children. It’s time we start talking about it,” Banks said.

Obscenity laws are already on the books forbidding obscene pornography online, on TV, at motels, and through retail, but the laws need to be enforced, the letter says.

Libertarians and anarchists aside, just about everyone agrees:

For Republicans particularly, there are potentially big electoral gains to be realized by way of attacking pornography purveyance. Females are even more opposed to unrestricted pornography than men are. Suburban women are skeptical of the GOP. Taking the lead on this could be a way to win them back. Nobody wants to publicly apologize for the pornography industry, either. It’s demeaning, exploitative, and gross. “My body, my choice” is more rhetorically effective with some issues than with others.

GSS variables used: PORNLAW, YEAR(2012-2018), SEXORNT, SEX, PARTYID(0-1)(2-4)(5-6), RACECEN1(1)(2)(3)(4-10), HISPANIC(1)(2-50), RELIG(1-2,4-13)(3), COHORT(1900-1945)(1946-1964)(1965-1979)(1980-1994)(1995-2000)

 
• Category: Culture/Society • Tags: Demographics, GSS, Pornography 
Hide 81 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Sexually explicit content segregated on .xxx TLD
    SSN input required to view
    Waiting period of 36 hours

    “Viewing porn should be harder than buying an AR-15”

    • Agree: Talha
    • Replies: @SaneClownPosse
    Hmmm, a market for 80% finished porn is born.

    Yeah, put your SSN out there to a dodgy .xxx domain.

    Require a credit card, that way the parents should be spurred into acting as "parents".
    , @Nodwink
    Your AR-15 won't help you if you get in the way of my viewing pleasure. Think again.
    , @obwandiyag
    Republicans will never suppress porn.

    Too much money in it.

    Period. All else is air.
  2. Beyond the moral issue–which definitely resonates with certain audiences–there’s the public health one, both mental and physical. Do you think that it’s a coincidence that TV is littered with commercials for bonerpill start-ups (“Roman”, “Hims”) aimed exclusively at millennials? What could possibly be causing this massive wave of impotence in otherwise healthy young men, when previous generations would have laughed at the idea of needing medical assistance ‘down there’ before the age of 60?

    Maybe, just maybe, it’s the infinite stream of increasingly hardcore digital porn being mainlined straight into people’s dopamine centers every day from the time they’re 12…

    For folks, especially younger ones, who have a pretty laissez faire attitude towards obscenity, this is an angle that works where the moral might not. On a related note, people’s willingness to rationalize why their obvious addictions to pornography ‘aren’t a big deal’ is really something to watch; if you suggest to somebody that, hey, it might not be such a good idea to fuck with your brain like that they will immediately start throwing at you all kinds of things ‘debunking’ the links between porn and poor health. Again, how dumb do you have to be to think that this “”random”” outbreak of impotence is unrelated to the porno epidemic??

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    This is an interesting thesis I happen to disagree with.

    Isn't it more plausible that in highly industrialized societies there are many factors contributing not only to impotence, but even more to desexualization of young people (Japan, Korea)? Porn may be one among others, but plastic & general trends of life, outside of sex industry, could be more important.

    Could increased impotence be just a side effect of any post-modern society? Could it be that "hormonal", natural sexuality is a sign of healthy- but vanishing dumb pre-modern societies, while imaginative sexuality is becoming the dominant element?

    Considering all plastic, lower sperm count etc.

    And- could it be that homo sapiens is just obsolete, and the most advanced forms of that species will, in not so distant future, be transformed into something different?

    Just speculating...
  3. @Not My Economy
    Sexually explicit content segregated on .xxx TLD
    SSN input required to view
    Waiting period of 36 hours

    "Viewing porn should be harder than buying an AR-15"

    Hmmm, a market for 80% finished porn is born.

    Yeah, put your SSN out there to a dodgy .xxx domain.

    Require a credit card, that way the parents should be spurred into acting as “parents”.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @Owen C.
    Require an SSN (or equivalent national ID number) AND a credit/debit card.
  4. Well, well, soi-disant conservatives actually trying to conserve something. Fifty years too late, but at least they’re trying.

    • Replies: @Owen C.
    And you also get coomers and e-thots spamming memes with such Satanic slogans as "there is no God, do whatever you want", reminiscent of Crowley's "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law", in response to calls to ban porn.
  5. @SaneClownPosse
    Hmmm, a market for 80% finished porn is born.

    Yeah, put your SSN out there to a dodgy .xxx domain.

    Require a credit card, that way the parents should be spurred into acting as "parents".

    Require an SSN (or equivalent national ID number) AND a credit/debit card.

  6. @MBlanc46
    Well, well, soi-disant conservatives actually trying to conserve something. Fifty years too late, but at least they’re trying.

    And you also get coomers and e-thots spamming memes with such Satanic slogans as “there is no God, do whatever you want”, reminiscent of Crowley’s “do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law”, in response to calls to ban porn.

  7. @Not My Economy
    Sexually explicit content segregated on .xxx TLD
    SSN input required to view
    Waiting period of 36 hours

    "Viewing porn should be harder than buying an AR-15"

    Your AR-15 won’t help you if you get in the way of my viewing pleasure. Think again.

    • Replies: @Talha
    Because people are sometimes locked and loaded in other ways...you don't want to get hit in the cross fire:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbaf1YXeHQ4

    Peace.
  8. My grandfather is an ancient who, having been born in a saner America that had an actual private sphere, has no comprehension of why someone would ever want to watch such filth.

    I’m surprised that only 53% of ancients believe it should be totally illegal.

  9. With the amount of softcore porn pervading everyday TV, it`s meaningless anyway.

  10. A) young men who vote R because the right is the free-speech cool-uncle team now

    B) Munchausen moms who want their sons not just chemically but also social-symbolically castrated—and who aren’t partisan Democrats, and who won’t do what the TV says and vote against the misogynist evangelicals trying to take their rape-fantasy novels away, and…

    Who’s more?

    Is this sudden right-wide porn-ban urgency, from congress to Gab to /pol/, the “Outer Party” trying to throw 2020 by alienating A)?

    Any simpler explanations out there?

    Seems kinda…”emergent.”

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    We were several months ahead of the curve! (And yes, you'll notice that this post borrows from--and builds upon--those older posts on account of the sudden salience).
  11. The essential flaw in this neo-patriarchal nonsense is that porn is fantasy sex. Now repeat after me: human beings are eternally fascinated by fantasy because it is not what they do in their actual lives, or necessarily even want to do. Porn is the occasional escape from reality that is essentially to all human emotional balance. Outlawing porn because it damages certain disturbed people who became unhealthily obsessed with it makes as much sense as drug and alcohol prohibition. This business of “we must outlaw this because it makes me anxious” says more about the adjustment of the writer than it does about yet another end-of-the-world scenario.

    Oh and if you think porn is a recent development might want to read the book “Rereading Sex” by Helen Horowitz, which describes the extensive circulation of pornography in the United States in the nineteenth century. Expression of human sexuality is pretty much a constant throughout human history: the only variable from culture to culture is how honest we are about what we all like to do best.

    I think it tells you all you need to know about the good Congressman’s psychological issues when he considers “people having sex” to be a “lewd act”. Guess how you got here, chief. Wasn’t ’cause mommy and daddy were holding hands. But, oh yes, the children, we must save the children! Heaven help us if they don’t grow up as maladjusted as we are.

    • Agree: Nodwink, Bardon Kaldian
    • Disagree: Korenchkin
    • Replies: @Korenchkin
    Are you really going to pretend that drawings or murky colorless photos from the 19th Century are equal to the hardcore footage that covers the front page of every porn site, something an 8 year-old can access?
    Most that pornography is made by exploiting and abusing people, a disturbingly large amount of it working to normalize incest.

    Yes humans have vices, and yes people in the past had those vices aswell, but we should not work to emulate the worst aspects of humanity from the past, and if you brought a person from the past (or just asked someone from the ancients category on that poll) they'll be in agreement that what we have today is not normal and it should not be normalized

    But hey, you kicked the shit out of that strawman

    Heaven help us if they don’t grow up as maladjusted as we are.
     
    We are imperfect so we should make no effort to raise our children to be better then us? What kind of logic is that

    Horowitz
     
    Every. single. time.
    , @Dumbo
    Disagree. Eroticism is OK I suppose, but current digital porn is, at least, a massive waste of time for young people, not to mention its negative social and psychological effects. I haven't watched porn in years and don't miss it. I wish I could get back all the time I wasted with it. Also by its nature, visual stimulation by porn requires an increase in the extremity of it. You start with something soft, end up with the most degrading things imaginable, and it is easy to find it, for free, so why not?

    It doesn't need to be censored or banned, just substantially reduced. If it was possible to reduce tobacco consumption, reducing porn would be much easier. If it's not done it's because someone doesn't want it.
    , @Athletic and Whitesplosive
    t.degenerate

    Outlawing porn because it damages certain disturbed people who became unhealthily obsessed with it makes as much sense as drug and alcohol prohibition.
     
    Yeah, tons of sense in plenty of circumstances. Given that it serves no positive purpose, damages everyone that uses it, and becomes completely crippling for many, it's basically an unalloyed evil. Alcohol is fine for most in social situations (excluding indios), and marijuana has some few medicinal purposes; all rationalizations for the "benefits" of pornography are 100% garbage.

    Oh and if you think porn is a recent development might want to read the book “Rereading Sex” by Helen Horowitz, which describes the extensive circulation of pornography in the United States in the nineteenth century. Expression of human sexuality is pretty much a constant throughout human history: the only variable from culture to culture is how honest we are about what we all like to do best.
     
    Garbage rationalizations from an apologist for moral filth [(((Horrowitz))), hmmm...]. There's a 0% chance that the pervasiveness and volume of modern pornography is at all comparable to any other era, to say nothing of the steeply accelerating perversity of the material itself. The average pornhub video makes hustler look like Sears catalogue. And it's a disingenuous argument anyway, who the hell ever said perversion was something novel? Murder's nothing new either, I mean we all must just be repressed murderers, right?

    I think it tells you all you need to know about the good Congressman’s psychological issues when he considers “people having sex” to be a “lewd act”
     
    Everybody shits, therefore a graphic video of shit coming out of your ass isn't "lewd", according to your idiot logic. Even a moron usually understands the distinction between things which should be done in private vs displayed broadly to the public

    But, oh yes, the children, we must save the children! Heaven help us if they don’t grow up as maladjusted as we are
     
    Yeah, what stupid prudes, concerned for the welfare of children who are exposed to insanely perverted filth that would make nero blush, trivially accessed (even accidentally) from every computer on earth! Since you're just a callous freak without concern for anyone but yourself, you rationalize the extremely well-founded concern for the most vulnerable people there are to be intrinsically without merit. You're a worm.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    We're on the threshold of fornication and procreation being completely separated from one another. Ubiquitous, novel, instantaneous hardcore pornography without cost is similarly historically unprecedented.
    , @Denis
    In this entire strange comment this:

    Porn is the occasional escape from reality that is essentially to all human emotional balance.
     
    Is the only argument in pornography's favour, and it is obviously mistaken. It is obviously not essential to emotional balance to have porn.
  12. China, for example is “softcore country”– you can’t see the nipples or genitals, but everything else is OK.

    There’s sex shops with all the new fancy kinky crap. So adults get to boink, and everyone gets to see nice curves in mags and adverts.

    But porn as such is banned, and rightly so.

    Especially this becomes apparent today, with the new generation of “hypno porn” and personality-splitting hypno commands such as Bambi Sleep (freely avaliable to any kid on Youtube, may they melt in hell for eternity).

    The new generation hypno porn is like crack compared to powder cocaine, while the Bambi Sleep stuff is like PCP+LSD compared to a beer.

    With this new wave of psychopathicaly destructive porn that breaks the remaining young men of the White West, the wisdom of China’s porn ban has never been more apparent.

  13. I’ve long argued that Congress should remove copyright protection for porn. Or, to avoid litigation about what constitutes pornography or obscenity, they could remove copyright protections for all depictions of nudity or sexual activity (with an exception for biology textbooks and the like).

    The Constitution says the ONLY purpose of copyright is to “promote the Progress of Science and useful arts.” Who can argue that gratuitous nudity and sex in media is a “useful art”?

    Without copyright protections, the DMCA also doesn’t apply, and it gets a lot harder to make money off of porn.

    I think it’s absolutely crazy that we currently empower porn producers to use the power of the state to enforce their exclusive right to sell smut.

    • Replies: @Gordo

    Without copyright protections, the DMCA also doesn’t apply, and it gets a lot harder to make money off of porn.

    I think it’s absolutely crazy that we currently empower porn producers to use the power of the state to enforce their exclusive right to sell smut.
     
    Agreed that is a weapon that should be turned on them. Also 21 minimum age for 'acting'.
  14. Repulican “women” and their slop-grade zoomer kids = burnt out bulldykes.

    Right wing is where the mad heiffers of tbe feminist league go.

  15. The First Amendment was cooked up to protect political speech but now the First Amendment is used to protect the depiction and dissemination of broads bent over naked in every which way while being plunged into pornographically.

    The Founding Fathers used the mail system to do some politics and they censored each other like bastards through control of the mail system, and plenty of Americans have been thrown in jail for political speech and political actions.

    How about a partial ban on pornography in Boston where they have fun doing such things as a test case to see if it works? I would go so far as to ban the depictions of women wearing sleeveless dresses or blouses or appearing in public with their bra straps or panty lines visible. Those women who do that should be put in dousing chairs as punishment. Many younger males with high IQs will figure out that the dousing chair punishment will make the bra straps and the panty lines even more pronounced, and they’ll agitate like bastards in favor of that law.

    BAN PORNO IN BOSTON

    Crotch and wallet politics is understandable by most — try explaining monetary policy to these overfed walrus slobs in the USA waddling around Walmart. Fat Chance, Charlie!

    BAN WALMARTS EVERYWHERE OUTSIDE BOSTON

    White Core America Party will BAN and financially liquidate all the internet corporations and ABC/Disney and NBC/Comcast and CBS/Viacom and Murdoch Mob/Fox News and Apple and Alphabet/Google and Facebook and any other propaganda outlets that need to be BANNED!

    BAN THE BILLIONAIRES NOW!

    Don’t forget the Pewitt Conjured Loot Portion(PCLP) that will use the newly nationalized Federal Reserve Bank to give each American with all blood ancestors born in colonial America or the USA before 1924 Ten Thousand Dollars a month. Tax Free!

    The White broads in the suburbs who are eligible for the Pewitt Conjured Loot Portion(PCLP) want Ten Grand a Month and they can do what they want with porn — ban it or minimize it or any other damn thing!

  16. @Observator
    The essential flaw in this neo-patriarchal nonsense is that porn is fantasy sex. Now repeat after me: human beings are eternally fascinated by fantasy because it is not what they do in their actual lives, or necessarily even want to do. Porn is the occasional escape from reality that is essentially to all human emotional balance. Outlawing porn because it damages certain disturbed people who became unhealthily obsessed with it makes as much sense as drug and alcohol prohibition. This business of "we must outlaw this because it makes me anxious" says more about the adjustment of the writer than it does about yet another end-of-the-world scenario.

    Oh and if you think porn is a recent development might want to read the book "Rereading Sex" by Helen Horowitz, which describes the extensive circulation of pornography in the United States in the nineteenth century. Expression of human sexuality is pretty much a constant throughout human history: the only variable from culture to culture is how honest we are about what we all like to do best.

    I think it tells you all you need to know about the good Congressman's psychological issues when he considers "people having sex" to be a "lewd act". Guess how you got here, chief. Wasn't 'cause mommy and daddy were holding hands. But, oh yes, the children, we must save the children! Heaven help us if they don't grow up as maladjusted as we are.

    Are you really going to pretend that drawings or murky colorless photos from the 19th Century are equal to the hardcore footage that covers the front page of every porn site, something an 8 year-old can access?
    Most that pornography is made by exploiting and abusing people, a disturbingly large amount of it working to normalize incest.

    Yes humans have vices, and yes people in the past had those vices aswell, but we should not work to emulate the worst aspects of humanity from the past, and if you brought a person from the past (or just asked someone from the ancients category on that poll) they’ll be in agreement that what we have today is not normal and it should not be normalized

    But hey, you kicked the shit out of that strawman

    Heaven help us if they don’t grow up as maladjusted as we are.

    We are imperfect so we should make no effort to raise our children to be better then us? What kind of logic is that

    Horowitz

    Every. single. time.

    • Agree: Denis
  17. itt: porn addicts rationalizing why it’s not a problem (for them or society)

  18. Libertarian chimes in anyway:

    It’s not the era of the plastic-wrapped Playboys and Penthouses kept on the upper shelf at the 7-Eleven. Yes, anyone can pull up a page, enter some bogus information (maybe you need a real email address), and see all sorts of things. It’s not the government’s job to sort out what your kid is looking at on the computer. That leads to all kinds of badness, stuff that would affect the alt-right particularly harshly.

    No, it’s called BEING A PARENT! You have kids, A.E. I gather you don’t think it’s OK for anything but maybe a teenage boy once in a while to pull up these sites. Hell, for toddlers, you prevent them from being able to open cabinets with the poisons in them. Then you make sure they understand before they get to 5 and are around that stuff. For teenagers you teach them about drugs before the point they’ll get offered the stuff. I would hope they’d listen to you about sitting in front of porno pictures on the internet too.

    It’s not like we couldn’t get ahold of the girly magazines in my day, 7-Eleven policy not withstanding. For years I didn’t understand why our acquaintance’s Dad never got on his case about our “borrowing” his stash of Playboys for a month or two, haha. I respected my Dad, but knew he wouldn’t have a cow about our having “perused” these publications at that age.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    One practical problem, even for responsible parents, is that kids tend to be more technically savvy than their parents are. To phrase it in a way that will resonate with a libertarian, the regulators will always be a step or three behind those they are tasked with regulating!
    , @RadicalCenter
    My father would have felt the same way. But I’m coming to wonder whether they were wrong.
    , @Rosie

    No, it’s called BEING A PARENT!
     
    This is why libertarians are so out-of-touch with public sentiment. You all greatly exaggerate the power of parenting and underestimate the influence of the social climate.

    Good parents are losing their adult children to opioid addiction and other destructive habits, and the state shouldn't be in the business of making parents' jobs harder. To a very large extent, porn has virtually eliminated the benefits of the internet for young people. Any programs you use to block it inevitably reduce the whole device to uselessness, as curious children can't find anything on it.
    , @GU
    If I buried a bunch of landmines in someone’s yard and, in response to their objections, said “what’s wrong with you, aren’t you a good parent? Figure out where the landmines are and keep your kids from stepping on them!”

    Is that a convincing retort? Cuz that’s basically what you’re saying. Instead of chiding people for not being vigilant regarding landmines, how about we stop the jerks from burying explosive traps in kid-accessible places instead?
  19. Libertarian continues chiming in anyway:

    I could see a rule made about flagging (via HTML tags, whatever) any sites that display pornography, so that software for parents could be made to more easily screen out it all, per parents’ browser settings, including on the phones. Even then, you’d run into that tag being abused by whatever agency was in charge of this flagging. Better yet, let those software makers themselves figure out a good way to do it. I’m sure there’s stuff out there already.

    Were I have sat in my bedroom all day, with pictures taped on the wall, my Dad would have put an end to it and got me outside raking more pine straw for the driveway. I guess the real problem today is that kids stay stuck inside too much.

    Is the DOJ overmanned, BTW? How about we set them to raiding meat packing plants and farms for employment of illegal aliens? Talk about your low-hanging fruit.

    Speaking of low-hanging, actually, some of it pretty high-hanging, fruit, that me of peaches more than anything, here’s a post about the Grid Girls that are no longer allowed to brighten up the Formula One racetracks.

    Not my Economy and Talha – DO NOT LOOK!

    • Replies: @Talha
    Thanks for the warning bro, wasn't about to click on it, but that helped.

    A Christian guy on Twitter asked - regardign thsi subject - how many people had come across pornography before reaching maturity and without any choice.

    If I recalI correctly, I first encountered a magazine - kind of torn up, not exactly in pristine condition - lying by the sidewalk on my way back from school. It was very close to the school grounds and was likely dropped there deliberately.

    Peace.

  20. @Nodwink
    Your AR-15 won't help you if you get in the way of my viewing pleasure. Think again.

    Because people are sometimes locked and loaded in other ways…you don’t want to get hit in the cross fire:

    Peace.

  21. @Achmed E. Newman
    Libertarian continues chiming in anyway:

    I could see a rule made about flagging (via HTML tags, whatever) any sites that display pornography, so that software for parents could be made to more easily screen out it all, per parents' browser settings, including on the phones. Even then, you'd run into that tag being abused by whatever agency was in charge of this flagging. Better yet, let those software makers themselves figure out a good way to do it. I'm sure there's stuff out there already.

    Were I have sat in my bedroom all day, with pictures taped on the wall, my Dad would have put an end to it and got me outside raking more pine straw for the driveway. I guess the real problem today is that kids stay stuck inside too much.

    Is the DOJ overmanned, BTW? How about we set them to raiding meat packing plants and farms for employment of illegal aliens? Talk about your low-hanging fruit.

    Speaking of low-hanging, actually, some of it pretty high-hanging, fruit, that me of peaches more than anything, here's a post about the Grid Girls that are no longer allowed to brighten up the Formula One racetracks.

    Not my Economy and Talha - DO NOT LOOK!

    Thanks for the warning bro, wasn’t about to click on it, but that helped.

    A Christian guy on Twitter asked – regardign thsi subject – how many people had come across pornography before reaching maturity and without any choice.

    If I recalI correctly, I first encountered a magazine – kind of torn up, not exactly in pristine condition – lying by the sidewalk on my way back from school. It was very close to the school grounds and was likely dropped there deliberately.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    The ones I had were in much better shape. I don't think they did me a bit of harm, but then I doubt they did me much good. I was not able to get into the situations I'd read about in Penthouse Forum, so why pay the $1.25? Dang Layin' Press!
  22. Imagine thinking the Kritarchy will allow anything to be done about this. But yes, Republicans might eke out a few more elections by railing against porn, while doing nothing to actually get rid of it, and giving tax cuts to the pornographers and foreign aid to the pornographers’ relatives in Israel.

    • Replies: @obwandiyag
    Exactly. You have the right idea. The problem, as it always is, is money. There is too too much of it porn for it ever ever to be banned again.
  23. Aren’t “Incels” a market of voters you could really, REALLY piss-off and will vote?

    • Replies: @Kratoklastes

    Aren’t “Incels” a market of voters you could really, REALLY piss-off and will vote?
     
    Nope - they're totally disorganised, and the vast bulk of them will grow up to be perfectly-normal cubicle-schlubs.
  24. @Observator
    The essential flaw in this neo-patriarchal nonsense is that porn is fantasy sex. Now repeat after me: human beings are eternally fascinated by fantasy because it is not what they do in their actual lives, or necessarily even want to do. Porn is the occasional escape from reality that is essentially to all human emotional balance. Outlawing porn because it damages certain disturbed people who became unhealthily obsessed with it makes as much sense as drug and alcohol prohibition. This business of "we must outlaw this because it makes me anxious" says more about the adjustment of the writer than it does about yet another end-of-the-world scenario.

    Oh and if you think porn is a recent development might want to read the book "Rereading Sex" by Helen Horowitz, which describes the extensive circulation of pornography in the United States in the nineteenth century. Expression of human sexuality is pretty much a constant throughout human history: the only variable from culture to culture is how honest we are about what we all like to do best.

    I think it tells you all you need to know about the good Congressman's psychological issues when he considers "people having sex" to be a "lewd act". Guess how you got here, chief. Wasn't 'cause mommy and daddy were holding hands. But, oh yes, the children, we must save the children! Heaven help us if they don't grow up as maladjusted as we are.

    Disagree. Eroticism is OK I suppose, but current digital porn is, at least, a massive waste of time for young people, not to mention its negative social and psychological effects. I haven’t watched porn in years and don’t miss it. I wish I could get back all the time I wasted with it. Also by its nature, visual stimulation by porn requires an increase in the extremity of it. You start with something soft, end up with the most degrading things imaginable, and it is easy to find it, for free, so why not?

    It doesn’t need to be censored or banned, just substantially reduced. If it was possible to reduce tobacco consumption, reducing porn would be much easier. If it’s not done it’s because someone doesn’t want it.

  25. Anonymous[112] • Disclaimer says:

    I’m an older millennial. I grew up with pornography instantly available, unlike earlier generations, but I’m not addicted to it and only look at it now and again. I don’t think much about it one way or the other. The fact that others may be obsessed with it doesn’t concern me.
    I’m much more concerned about the easy availability of videos and photos of brutal murders and killings and those who enjoy watching them. I’m much more concerned about…well, a lot of things. Pornography is not even in the top 100.
    I notice in this thread already that porn censorship for some is really about controlling what women do or even wear. So it’s just part of the routine misogyny that infests the right. Porn censorship, then, is is just another obsession of the hall monitor types among us who want to control what other people do or think even in their personal lives.
    I don’t care if some guy faps so much that he suffers from ED; in fact, I think that’s kind of funny — what an idiot. But it’s not my concern. I certainly don’t think the federal government should intervene — that’s a wild over-reaction.
    I agree that, regarding children, it’s the parents’ job to police their offspring’s access to what’s available on-line or elsewhere, whether pornography or other things. It can be argued, of course, that even the most conscientious parent can’t control everything. So it’s up to the parent to instill values, explain perils, as much by setting a personal example as by words. Don’t smoke, don’t drink, don’t take drugs, don’t watch porn (in fact, don’t watch TV, period) and it’s less likely your kids ever will, either.
    But even if kids do watch porn, I wonder how much harm can it do? The other day I was listening to a talk by Patricia Cornwell, a highly successful author, and she mentioned that she knew what erotic asphyxiation was by the time she was 12. I would assume she learned about that by watching porn. Maybe she learned to indulge in it by seeing photos and videos of others enjoy it. If so, so what? Why should the government, or any other agency, have intervened to prevent her learning about this?
    As far as porn being always available, that’s certainly true, although it took a bit more effort to get it, but Tijuana Bibles, one-reel “smokers,” and all sorts of that thing have always been around. Porn novels have been around and popular for a long time, not only things like Maxwell Bodenheim’s, softcore “Replenishing Jessica,” a once very popular book, but hardcore child pornography such as Felix Salten’s “Josephine Mutzenbacher,” the purported autobiography of a highly sexually active child from the ages of seven to 13. (Salten was also the author of the Bambi story.) People openly bought that novel in bookstores generations ago, doubtless to fap to. Of course, there is all kinds of Victorian fetish porn, some of it considered classic literature, such as “Venus in Furs,” that is still around and still enjoyed. Should all that be banned?
    Alcohol, hard drugs, fattening foods, violent video games and pornography are all freely available in today’s world. I only drink occasionally, I don’t take drugs. I don’t dine at fast food restaurants or eat junk food. I don’t play video games. The government didn’t need to intervene to regulate my activities regarding these things. I do enjoy porn once in a while. So what? And why should the government stop me from doing so?
    My behavior is regulated by me and whatever values, habits and world view my parents inculcated in me. I don’t need or want the government to step in and tell me what I should or shouldn’t do in my private life.

    • Replies: @Tusk
    You write "it’s just part of the routine misogyny that infests the right. Porn censorship, then, is is just another obsession of the hall monitor types among us who want to control what other people do or think even in their personal lives." Indeed, the misogyny of the Right is that it doesn't believe that women should be exploited by criminal types who wish to market and sell sexuality, from the New York Times:

    Girls Do Porn is, allegedly, a criminal operation masterminded by a group of people willing to exploit young women for the sake of financial gain. Owner Michael Pratt is a wanted fugitive, and one cameraman has testified to lying to the women who came to shoot what they thought was a quick-cash modeling gig
    https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3kx483/girls-do-porn-sex-trafficking-fbi-indictment
     
    Millions of people watched the videos distributed that the FBI indicted them over, but I guess in your eyes there is nothing wrong with this. Even further, one must assume that operations like Epstein, wherein young exploited women deceive degenerates in denial about their willingness and freedom to copulate, is a fair and logical thing. They are both cases of exploitation of women at the hands of the common masters of those who push this. Further, the negative affects on the 'stars' themselves are clearly horrific since "Mental health issues have always been a big problem in the porn world." I wonder why mentally ill women are attracted at porn, but it is clearly vice versa, mentally ill women are recruited into porn because they are easy targets. If GDP can exploit women coming for a modelling interview, do you think a low SES, poor, and mentally ill woman is going to turn down what appears to be a lucrative offer? One only needs to view the debased behaviour of "professionals" in the industry on efukt to see how these people are being treated. Don't pretend you care about these people. The suicides are just a natural course of business: https://www.unilad.co.uk/featured/the-dark-reason-porn-stars-keep-dying/

    You write "People openly bought that novel in bookstores generations ago, doubtless to fap to. Of course, there is all kinds of Victorian fetish porn, some of it considered classic literature, such as “Venus in Furs,” that is still around and still enjoyed. Should all that be banned?" But one wonders where the line is drawn? A novel with erotic elements is still largely a novel, albeit designed for sexual purposes, but is HD Virtual Reality videos of 18 year old (most likely low SES women) getting XXXX'd in the XXX by 15 guys really the same? A Victorian reading a smutty novel may have gone out and acted upon his desires, but the risk was low, comparatively here is how the modern youth act after being inundated with a free degenerate media:


    A SIXTEEN-year-old girl’s bowel was so badly injured during group sex that she needs to use a colostomy bag for the rest of her life...the girl's horrific experience was just one in a string of serious injuries to result from porn-addicted Australians trying to imitate aggressive sex they've watched online.
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8206253/girl-sex-colostomy-bag-australia-porn-scenes/
     
    I wonder where a 16 year old, and her cohorts of willing men, perceived the idea of their team up sexual acts from? At 16 years no less. Does one really think 'DON'T CLICK HERE IF UNDER 18' has ever worked at preventing this? Perhaps we should remove seatbelts and not lock up/label chemicals in order to promote further culling of the weak. Why should we restrict anything at all? Children should be free to drink bleach just as they should be free to see the baseless hedonism of the human race at the click of a button!

    One important factor in discussing this is the availability and cost of adult media. There is no cost, there is no barrier to entry, within the modern age. Nearly everyone has an internet capable device and an internet source to connect to. One may talk about restricting drugs, alcohol, or fatty food, but one cannot procure those items without a source of funds. They are already de facto restricted in that one cannot obtain them while you're at home and have 0 dollars.

    From a report about drug use in Australia: "


    According to the 2013 National Drug Strategy Household Survey (NDSHS), around
    2.9 million people in Australia aged 14 and over were estimated to have used illicit
    drugs in the previous 12 months"
    https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/e4f7cfc6-3cd5-4cf7-8c7e-dd77e83b8239/ah16-4-5-illicit-drug-use.pdf.aspx

     

    which is less than 10% of the Australian population, we also see in terms of Methamphetamine frequency (an addictive drug) that only 16% of the recorded users used daily/weekly. Considering this the frequency of addictive drug use is largely a less than weekly thing, less than 50 times a year for a majority of users. How does this compare to adult media usage? Well a study in Poland of students (n=6464) found that 10-15% are daily consumers. So the usage rates within a conservative and religious state are equal, or more than, the consumption rates of highly addictive drug users. I question why one would want to fill their mind with such artificial eroticism daily instead of focusing on stability with a partner to achieve the real thing.

    Polish study source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6571756/

    The answer to real life partners instead of consuming visual media unfortunately seems to be caused by the consumption of the media at the risk to your personal life. As reported:

    •Pornography use increases the marital infidelity rate by more than 300%.xiii
    •40 percent of people identified as “sex addicts” lose their spouses, 58 percent suffer considerable financial losses, and about 33% lose their jobs.xiv
    https://www.webroot.com/us/en/resources/tips-articles/internet-pornography-by-the-numbers

     

    That seems like a lot of damage to ones personal life for a harmless bit of fun online, but wait it says 33% lose their jobs because of this and as the report follow up "In February 2010, the number of people using a work computer to visit sexually oriented websites was as high as 28%" So we find that over 1/4 of people do not have the willpower or capacity to work through a day without using work property to divulge in the consumption of adult media. Maybe their lack of willpower has something to do with consuming hardcore porn at the same rate of drug users.

    I ask you, and anyone else he consumes adult media, to think about this: Imagine if everytime you consumer porn, you instead consumed drugs or alcohol instead, would you classify your drug/alcohol consumption rates as reasonable? I cannot imagine many people would prefer to do drugs at the rate they consume porn. Both are addictive behaviours that damage you.

    You write two contradictory statements in a row:


    I don’t care if some guy faps so much that he suffers from ED; in fact, I think that’s kind of funny — what an idiot. But it’s not my concern. I certainly don’t think the federal government should intervene — that’s a wild over-reaction.
    [+]
    I agree that, regarding children, it’s the parents’ job to police their offspring’s access
     
    Interesting to note the common logic between the libertarianesque/pro-porn position media here. On one hand, the state should not intervene to protect citizens from this, on the other guardians should intervene to protect their children. I assume under your thinking as soon as one turns 18 the child should have the right to consume as much porn as they wish, invalidating a parents attempts to protect them. I know that with kids usually parents try to protect them from excessive drinking, drugs, or reckless behaviour, and then at 18 the protections end and you welcome their quick spiral into oblivion as why should they be protected anymore? Perhaps if people looked out for the common weal again, realising that when one leaves the protection/embrace of a househould and family they become part of the embrace of the state/society, we would not let mentally ill and poor women get scalped and railroaded as part of sexual gratification.

    Finally here is a philosophical perspective on the matter. Everytime you consume porn you are outsourcing your intimacy to digital media. Instead of taking part in relations with another you decide to devote your energy and happiness to a foreign virtual object. If you have a partner, each bit of intimacy is stolen from her by you and instead devoted to a virtual woman. This is similar to cheating, in that while you do not have to deal with legitimate consequences of your actions (the fallout of a homewrecker or of other intimate-social relations) you are still siphoning off your energy away from what you should devote to your partner. Look at AE's graph, almost 40% of heterosexual women think porn should be banned outright. What would the reaction be from an average woman if you told her the amount of time you spent watching it per year? I feel as if most pepole's partners would be shocked if they admited the truth. Anecdotally, many women I know (across the political spectrum from liberal to conservative) have been very iffy about it and often jumped into a jealous rage when they discovered their partner had watched it unbeknownst to them.

    We must remember just because it has become normalised now, and our position and views warped by modernity, that we don't not accept it as commonplace. If someone were to go into the woods and sniff leaves, masturbate, and return home once a day it would be bizarre and troubling behaviour. But yet in a society of leafsniffing-jerkers we would be trying to convince people it is unhealthy!

    Just think on it, really think, about your mental and conscious consumption rates of adult media along with your, and perhaps friends, rates of use and think: Is this really safe?

    , @Audacious Epigone
    It's not well-adjusted, high-IQ, low time preference adults who need pornography restricted for them.
    , @GU
    *Places fentanyl on your adolescent children's nightstand every night*

    How much harm could it do? Why take it, do you lack good morals? Etc.
  26. @Observator
    The essential flaw in this neo-patriarchal nonsense is that porn is fantasy sex. Now repeat after me: human beings are eternally fascinated by fantasy because it is not what they do in their actual lives, or necessarily even want to do. Porn is the occasional escape from reality that is essentially to all human emotional balance. Outlawing porn because it damages certain disturbed people who became unhealthily obsessed with it makes as much sense as drug and alcohol prohibition. This business of "we must outlaw this because it makes me anxious" says more about the adjustment of the writer than it does about yet another end-of-the-world scenario.

    Oh and if you think porn is a recent development might want to read the book "Rereading Sex" by Helen Horowitz, which describes the extensive circulation of pornography in the United States in the nineteenth century. Expression of human sexuality is pretty much a constant throughout human history: the only variable from culture to culture is how honest we are about what we all like to do best.

    I think it tells you all you need to know about the good Congressman's psychological issues when he considers "people having sex" to be a "lewd act". Guess how you got here, chief. Wasn't 'cause mommy and daddy were holding hands. But, oh yes, the children, we must save the children! Heaven help us if they don't grow up as maladjusted as we are.

    t.degenerate

    Outlawing porn because it damages certain disturbed people who became unhealthily obsessed with it makes as much sense as drug and alcohol prohibition.

    Yeah, tons of sense in plenty of circumstances. Given that it serves no positive purpose, damages everyone that uses it, and becomes completely crippling for many, it’s basically an unalloyed evil. Alcohol is fine for most in social situations (excluding indios), and marijuana has some few medicinal purposes; all rationalizations for the “benefits” of pornography are 100% garbage.

    Oh and if you think porn is a recent development might want to read the book “Rereading Sex” by Helen Horowitz, which describes the extensive circulation of pornography in the United States in the nineteenth century. Expression of human sexuality is pretty much a constant throughout human history: the only variable from culture to culture is how honest we are about what we all like to do best.

    Garbage rationalizations from an apologist for moral filth [(((Horrowitz))), hmmm…]. There’s a 0% chance that the pervasiveness and volume of modern pornography is at all comparable to any other era, to say nothing of the steeply accelerating perversity of the material itself. The average pornhub video makes hustler look like Sears catalogue. And it’s a disingenuous argument anyway, who the hell ever said perversion was something novel? Murder’s nothing new either, I mean we all must just be repressed murderers, right?

    I think it tells you all you need to know about the good Congressman’s psychological issues when he considers “people having sex” to be a “lewd act”

    Everybody shits, therefore a graphic video of shit coming out of your ass isn’t “lewd”, according to your idiot logic. Even a moron usually understands the distinction between things which should be done in private vs displayed broadly to the public

    But, oh yes, the children, we must save the children! Heaven help us if they don’t grow up as maladjusted as we are

    Yeah, what stupid prudes, concerned for the welfare of children who are exposed to insanely perverted filth that would make nero blush, trivially accessed (even accidentally) from every computer on earth! Since you’re just a callous freak without concern for anyone but yourself, you rationalize the extremely well-founded concern for the most vulnerable people there are to be intrinsically without merit. You’re a worm.

    • Replies: @Dissident

    There’s a 0% chance that the pervasiveness and volume of modern pornography is at all comparable to any other era, to say nothing of the steeply accelerating perversity of the material itself. The average pornhub video makes hustler look like Sears catalogue.
     
    Yes, exactly! There is absolutely no comparison-- on both counts. It's night and day. Apples to elephants. I commend you as well as Talha and anyone else I may have missed at the moment who made this point. The infernal abyss that the vaunted blessings of technology has opened-up before every child makes the likes of Playboy look downright wholesome in comparison.

    Another major point glossed over by the defenders/apologists is that of ubiquitous availability. And again, I commend you, Talha and others, such as Tusk for pointing this out. As Tusk wrote in what was another excellent post in this thread,


    There is no cost, there is no barrier to entry, within the modern age. Nearly everyone has an internet capable device and an internet source to connect to.
     
    Parental controls and filters, it must be noted, are little more than a joke-- one that you can be sure countless numbers of kids are laughing at as we speak. (Think blocking at the network level is foolproof? Ever hear of public and neighbors' WiFi? Restrict all devices in your household and which you've given your kid from being able to connect to any network other than your own, which you've locked-down at multiple levels? Guess you don't know much about Tor, or the extremely easy ability for anyone with minimal tech savvy to boot into a Linux live system. Think one can't access much smut without providing a valid credit card or other payment credentials? Think again. 4Chan and similar imageboard sites are just what come to mind immediately as the most salient example...)

    But even if it were possible to effectively lockdown all of the devices within one's control, good luck keeping your kid away from a schoolmate who's worked his way around restrictions that may have been placed on his smartphone, tablet or laptop...or from using one of the computers in a public library, or perhaps even one of the computers at his school...


    the distinction between things which should be done in private vs displayed broadly to the public
     
    BINGO! again. I made this point in one of the last threads on the topic of porn: The conflation between sex, per se and gratuitious, graphic exhibitions and depictions of sex. The assertion that objection to the latter equates-to objection to the former is simply preposterous. (Similiarly, with regard to the way that those who object to promiscuity, excess, and perversion in matters sexual are often absurdly condemned as opposing sex, per se. Strawmen.)

    Another distinction that is often lost in discussions such as these is that of how one views a given phenomenon itself, in this case pornography, vs. one's position on how it should be treated from a legal standpoint. Whether pornography, drugs, adultery, fornication (or even masturbation (!), as per Rapparee's citation), or any number of other examples, one can maintain that something is indeed a vice that is best avoided (or at least greatly minimized) but should nonetheless not be illegal or at least not subject to criminal penalty. I'm not saying that this is my position here but merely pointing-out that it is one that is possible to take.


    [(((Horrowitz))), hmmm…].
     
    Pity that you had to detract from what was otherwise an excellent post by including this bit of gratutious Jew-baiting.

    Yes, Jews have been overrepresented in porn itself as well as among those who defend it. The facts nonetheless remain that:
    - Both categories also include plenty of non-Jews
    (Hugh Heffner, Bob Guccione and Larry Flynt are perhaps the three most well-known figures in porn, and perhaps the three most influential. Last I checked, not one of them was Jewish. Luke Ford, who has documented the porn industry and acknowledged the prevalence of Jews in it has also said that he does not believe that porn would be any less prevalaent, depraved or influential had Jews not been involved in it.)

    - Such Jews are overwhelmingly secular/irreligious at a minimum and, in many cases, downright hostile to religion and vehemently atheistic. As such, they are hardly representative of Judaism. Authentic Judaism easily rivals any other religion in condemning smut and sexual immorality.

    - However many the total number of Jews involved/implicated/complicit/culpabale in porn is, it does not come close to comprising even a majority of the Jewish population at-large.

    - There are also plenty of Jews who are emphatically anti-porn. (Essentially, any Jew would have to be if he is committed-to Judaism, even if he may not be outspoken or active in such opposition.)

    I am reminded of a woman who was one of the leading crusaders against pornography of a past generation and who I am fairly certain was a Jewess. Unfortunately, her name escapes me at the moment. I also note that a number of prominent feminists, for all of their other faults, have been anti-porn. As I suspect you are well aware, feminism is another of those areas in which Jews are overrepresented.

    As relevant polling data such as that furnished by our host show, a great number of people across the population take a less-than-positive view of porn. The number, however one slices it, remains far greater than that of those who simplistically blame Jews for the evils and ills of the world. Revealing oneself as one of the latter inevitably results in turning-off and alienating any number of people who would otherwise be sympathetic and receptive to the arguments one is presenting. This holds true for just about any just and noble cause.

    MikeatMikedotMike and others make a valid point about the filth that permeates pop culture offerings such as television, film, and (what passes for) music.


    Since you’re just a callous freak without concern for anyone but yourself, you rationalize the extremely well-founded concern for the most vulnerable people there are to be intrinsically without merit. You’re a worm.
     
    I must add, as well, that resorting to this kind of ad hominem only detracts from one's credibility and effectiveness, while degrading the discourse. The heat is increased, while the light is lessened. Stick to argument from facts and logic (and, perhaps, appeals to nobler instincts).

    t.degenerate
     
    Incidentally, perhaps someone could be so kind to explain this "t.___" convention that I've seen a number of times?
  27. stare decisis and contemporary public opinion are at odds

    Stare decisisis a disgusting concept that should be abandoned – it stems from the same rotten barrel as Papal infallibility – but if it’s at odds with ‘contemporary public opinion’ (whatever that is) I would back the robed lickspittles’ historical drivellings every.single.time.

    Stopped clocks and all that.

    As to the filling in the would-be censors’ shit sandwich…

    Libertarians and anarchists aside, just about everyone agrees

    So what?

    The mode for ‘just about everyone‘ is an imbecile who doesn’t have the cognitive chops to make half-decent decisions that only affect themselves… and somehow once they’re tallied up there is some emergent wisdom that is supposed to be persuasive?

    Not sure why anyone should be persuaded by collective opinions of a group of people where the gap from me to their modal member, is wider than the gap from them to mongoloids. That’s pretty obviously dysgenic.

    Using the political system to infringe on the production, distribution or consumption of things where everyone in the supply chain is participating voluntarily… that is a thing far worse than pornography.

    There is absolutely no defensible statistical evidence that ubiquitous pornography causes its consumers to commit crimes.

    Even if there was, it’s necessary to balance the dynamic effects of letting the wowsers have their way, against any putative increase in sex crimes that result from porn (again – to make clear to Yanks: all the statistical evidence says that there is no effect).

    And letting the wowsers have their way does not just ‘reduce porn-related sex crime’; it would harm porn consumers who were never ever going to commit a sex crime in the first place. Always look for Bastiat’s TWINS (That Which Is Not Seen) – and then consider what happens once the wowsers have gotten their way.

    People who are driven by a primitive urge to control others’ private decisions, don’t want to change just-this-one-thing. Not ever.

    The current media cause célèbre of the climate cult – retarded Child-Saint Gretchen Aspburg – is a case in point: do you think she and her backers will be happy if their publicly-stated objective is achieved? Not on your fucking life.

    And so it is with the sorts of people who care far too much about what third parties are doing to (and with) their (and others) genitalia, orifices and PBF (precious bodily fluids).

    People of that ilk predictably stoop to flagrant dishonesty if they think it will get ‘contemporary public opinion’ (whatever that is) to move in the direction of their infatuation.

    That’s the pseudo-Platonic notion of Noble Bullshit[1] – which has always been a core driver of the Rhetoric of the Parasites (y compris political and religious parasites). Those parasites are the causa causans of about 80% of the easily-remediable problems of human existence.

    And once they have a beachhead, the worst among them will advocate for yet further encroachment on rights – until we return to the era of the auto da fé[2].

    There are people who are so retarded that they would undo the entire Enlightenment because of a book of infantile stories. And I’m not talking about the Muzzies.

    [1] Plato’s idea of a Noble Lie has to be extended to include Noble Bullshit because often those who deploy it don’t give a fuck if what they’re saying is true or not. Being indifferent to the truth value of a statement makes one a bullshitter, not a liar.

    [2] The auto da fé is still kind of a thing: courts take a positive view when the newly-convicted gives a statement expressing remorse. It has got to the point where if a newly-convicted refuses to do so their punishment is exacerbated – as usual in things driven by politics, there is a subsidy to dishonesty.

    • Agree: El Dato
  28. @Joe Stalin
    Aren't "Incels" a market of voters you could really, REALLY piss-off and will vote?

    Aren’t “Incels” a market of voters you could really, REALLY piss-off and will vote?

    Nope – they’re totally disorganised, and the vast bulk of them will grow up to be perfectly-normal cubicle-schlubs.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Disorganized? OK, but they have the wherewithal to come out and vote ... or not. I don't advocate pandering to begin with, but, if this post is about the votes, Comrade Stalin has a good point.
  29. And so begins our new national crusade, complete with Million Mom Anti-porn Marches, Obscenity Police, Show Trials and New Taxes for New Anti-Porn World Order. Sounds like 1950-1960s.

    Our country is Gonna Be Great!

  30. • Replies: @Big Dick Bandit
    excellent article. i love that the author begins by addressing how hard people rationalize, because he is absolutely correct.
  31. “Nobody wants to publicly apologize for the pornography industry.”

    They won’t have to because the battle won’t be fought out in the open.

    Every member in leadership in both parties, not to mention the rank and file, has pet issues of great concern to them, say gun rights, children’s clubs, the policeman’s guild, firefighters, 911 survivors, something and for years some innocuous sounding outfit, say the XYZ fund, has been making large contributions to each of these groups even though the recipients have no clue what XYZ fund does. And then, out of the blue, just as legislators are considering taking action against the sex industry they start receiving calls from officials in these do-good groups letting them know that if they proceed the cops or firefighters or children’s club or whatever will be hurt financially. That’s how it works. They use the do-good groups as leverage against the elected officials.

  32. Censorship, as with all social policy, legitimately originates in “community standards”. Any sustainable Republic must structure itself in such a way as to uphold “community standards”.

    This means the Republic has no business imposing standards* but, contrary to “libertarians” and other crypto-supremacists**, it most definitely _does_ have business imposing assortative migration and territorial partition such that it is _practical_ for communities to impose their own standards.

    This is the most optimal way I know of to make “consent of the governed” practically consistent with individual consent.

    *Imposing standards on the _source_ of speech, be it “porn” or “hate” or whatever, is what fuels the Hellish fires of crypto-supremacists like “libertarians”.

    **”libertarians” are all about making it so you can’t have the kind of community you want and must admit anything and everything to the environment of your children outside of your immediate “property”. “Propertarians” claim to avert this but fail to properly define “property”.

    • Disagree: Achmed E. Newman
  33. If elected officials were serious about restricting porn, (they aren’t, on either side), they would first seek to restrict it where it is most abundant and accessible. That being of course, the motion picture and recording industries.

    When one of the most popular TV shows celebrates child abuse, underage sexual activity, and homosexual obscenity (Modern Family), when you have pop stars singing about drunken orgies, drug use, and the glamorization of ghetto activity to their main target audience of teens (Katy Perry, Miley Cirus, and or insert any of the more recent rap stars managing not to get shot or drug themselves to death) no, this may not be as visually explicit as some porn star shoving a dildo up his/her ass, but it’s still porn, and it reaches a far greater number of people with greater influence on culture.

  34. That certainly is a conviction against the surveillance / tech state! Jeff Besoz has people in India monitor people having sex to make sure that it is appropriate sex. This is just totally outrageous! Most government employees spend most of their day watching pornography, in a total state of surveillance. You know what that means, right? There are surveillance cameras in everything from appliances, smoke detectors, alarm clocks, lights. Nobody wants these things to be happenning! They have ojectified and monetized everyone and everything that everyone creates for their own purposes.

    The predators have convinced themselves that everyone is their own natural resource for maximum profitization!

  35. That certainly is a conviction against the surveillance / tech state! Jeff Besoz has people in India monitor people having sex to make sure that it is appropriate sex. This is just totally outrageous! Most government employees spend most of their day watching pornography, in a total state of surveillance. You know what that means, right? There are surveillance cameras in everything from appliances, smoke detectors, alarm clocks, lights. Nobody wants these things to be happenning! They have ojectified and monetized everyone and everything that everyone creates for their own purposes.

    The predators have convinced themselves that everyone is their own natural resource for maximum profitization!

    They should really shut TOR down if they want to end pornography and corruption! Funded totally by the government and a dark underworld of illicet activity of every sort from what I have read about, but would not dare to use!

    There is enough corruption on the regular web! Who is stupid enough to believe that things cannot be deciphered which have been encrypted by the military, with each communication running through three volunteer check points to send the communication in transit? What are the check points? Army, Airforce and Marines?! Navy, FBI, NSA? Probably something like that, i would guess!

    The police have been running TOR bitcoin child porn sites, for everyone’s protection and national security, of course!

  36. @Talha
    For consideration.

    https://amgreatness.com/2019/12/15/a-science-based-case-for-ending-the-porn-epidemic/

    Peace.

    excellent article. i love that the author begins by addressing how hard people rationalize, because he is absolutely correct.

    • Agree: Talha
  37. It’s demeaning, exploitative, and gross.

    Amen. And yeah, a lot of that stuff is really disgusting.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    How do you know?
  38. @Talha
    Thanks for the warning bro, wasn't about to click on it, but that helped.

    A Christian guy on Twitter asked - regardign thsi subject - how many people had come across pornography before reaching maturity and without any choice.

    If I recalI correctly, I first encountered a magazine - kind of torn up, not exactly in pristine condition - lying by the sidewalk on my way back from school. It was very close to the school grounds and was likely dropped there deliberately.

    Peace.

    The ones I had were in much better shape. I don’t think they did me a bit of harm, but then I doubt they did me much good. I was not able to get into the situations I’d read about in Penthouse Forum, so why pay the $1.25? Dang Layin’ Press!

    • Replies: @Talha
    If you read the article I linked to, it points out that we are in a way more dangerous situation than with nudie magazines that were difficult to get to and had some fail safes to prevent them from getting into kids' hands. We know have the ability for any kid to get to it across any internet-connected device and that includes by way of any kid they know at school that may have one. All the worst stuff that one can imagine, at the tap of a finger. We need to make this stuff very, very difficult for kids to get to and require some effort or some kind of verification of something even for adults - and the porn industry should be taxed for the money required for these specific public-service programs - including billboards and stuff that mention all the studies and statistics that the article talks about.

    Peace.
  39. @Kratoklastes

    Aren’t “Incels” a market of voters you could really, REALLY piss-off and will vote?
     
    Nope - they're totally disorganised, and the vast bulk of them will grow up to be perfectly-normal cubicle-schlubs.

    Disorganized? OK, but they have the wherewithal to come out and vote … or not. I don’t advocate pandering to begin with, but, if this post is about the votes, Comrade Stalin has a good point.

  40. @Stealth

    It’s demeaning, exploitative, and gross.
     
    Amen. And yeah, a lot of that stuff is really disgusting.

    How do you know?

  41. @Achmed E. Newman
    The ones I had were in much better shape. I don't think they did me a bit of harm, but then I doubt they did me much good. I was not able to get into the situations I'd read about in Penthouse Forum, so why pay the $1.25? Dang Layin' Press!

    If you read the article I linked to, it points out that we are in a way more dangerous situation than with nudie magazines that were difficult to get to and had some fail safes to prevent them from getting into kids’ hands. We know have the ability for any kid to get to it across any internet-connected device and that includes by way of any kid they know at school that may have one. All the worst stuff that one can imagine, at the tap of a finger. We need to make this stuff very, very difficult for kids to get to and require some effort or some kind of verification of something even for adults – and the porn industry should be taxed for the money required for these specific public-service programs – including billboards and stuff that mention all the studies and statistics that the article talks about.

    Peace.

    • Agree: Dissident
  42. @Anonymous
    I'm an older millennial. I grew up with pornography instantly available, unlike earlier generations, but I'm not addicted to it and only look at it now and again. I don't think much about it one way or the other. The fact that others may be obsessed with it doesn't concern me.
    I'm much more concerned about the easy availability of videos and photos of brutal murders and killings and those who enjoy watching them. I'm much more concerned about...well, a lot of things. Pornography is not even in the top 100.
    I notice in this thread already that porn censorship for some is really about controlling what women do or even wear. So it's just part of the routine misogyny that infests the right. Porn censorship, then, is is just another obsession of the hall monitor types among us who want to control what other people do or think even in their personal lives.
    I don't care if some guy faps so much that he suffers from ED; in fact, I think that's kind of funny -- what an idiot. But it's not my concern. I certainly don't think the federal government should intervene -- that's a wild over-reaction.
    I agree that, regarding children, it's the parents' job to police their offspring's access to what's available on-line or elsewhere, whether pornography or other things. It can be argued, of course, that even the most conscientious parent can't control everything. So it's up to the parent to instill values, explain perils, as much by setting a personal example as by words. Don't smoke, don't drink, don't take drugs, don't watch porn (in fact, don't watch TV, period) and it's less likely your kids ever will, either.
    But even if kids do watch porn, I wonder how much harm can it do? The other day I was listening to a talk by Patricia Cornwell, a highly successful author, and she mentioned that she knew what erotic asphyxiation was by the time she was 12. I would assume she learned about that by watching porn. Maybe she learned to indulge in it by seeing photos and videos of others enjoy it. If so, so what? Why should the government, or any other agency, have intervened to prevent her learning about this?
    As far as porn being always available, that's certainly true, although it took a bit more effort to get it, but Tijuana Bibles, one-reel "smokers," and all sorts of that thing have always been around. Porn novels have been around and popular for a long time, not only things like Maxwell Bodenheim's, softcore "Replenishing Jessica," a once very popular book, but hardcore child pornography such as Felix Salten's "Josephine Mutzenbacher," the purported autobiography of a highly sexually active child from the ages of seven to 13. (Salten was also the author of the Bambi story.) People openly bought that novel in bookstores generations ago, doubtless to fap to. Of course, there is all kinds of Victorian fetish porn, some of it considered classic literature, such as "Venus in Furs," that is still around and still enjoyed. Should all that be banned?
    Alcohol, hard drugs, fattening foods, violent video games and pornography are all freely available in today's world. I only drink occasionally, I don't take drugs. I don't dine at fast food restaurants or eat junk food. I don't play video games. The government didn't need to intervene to regulate my activities regarding these things. I do enjoy porn once in a while. So what? And why should the government stop me from doing so?
    My behavior is regulated by me and whatever values, habits and world view my parents inculcated in me. I don't need or want the government to step in and tell me what I should or shouldn't do in my private life.

    You write “it’s just part of the routine misogyny that infests the right. Porn censorship, then, is is just another obsession of the hall monitor types among us who want to control what other people do or think even in their personal lives.” Indeed, the misogyny of the Right is that it doesn’t believe that women should be exploited by criminal types who wish to market and sell sexuality, from the New York Times:

    Girls Do Porn is, allegedly, a criminal operation masterminded by a group of people willing to exploit young women for the sake of financial gain. Owner Michael Pratt is a wanted fugitive, and one cameraman has testified to lying to the women who came to shoot what they thought was a quick-cash modeling gig
    https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3kx483/girls-do-porn-sex-trafficking-fbi-indictment

    Millions of people watched the videos distributed that the FBI indicted them over, but I guess in your eyes there is nothing wrong with this. Even further, one must assume that operations like Epstein, wherein young exploited women deceive degenerates in denial about their willingness and freedom to copulate, is a fair and logical thing. They are both cases of exploitation of women at the hands of the common masters of those who push this. Further, the negative affects on the ‘stars’ themselves are clearly horrific since “Mental health issues have always been a big problem in the porn world.” I wonder why mentally ill women are attracted at porn, but it is clearly vice versa, mentally ill women are recruited into porn because they are easy targets. If GDP can exploit women coming for a modelling interview, do you think a low SES, poor, and mentally ill woman is going to turn down what appears to be a lucrative offer? One only needs to view the debased behaviour of “professionals” in the industry on efukt to see how these people are being treated. Don’t pretend you care about these people. The suicides are just a natural course of business: https://www.unilad.co.uk/featured/the-dark-reason-porn-stars-keep-dying/

    You write “People openly bought that novel in bookstores generations ago, doubtless to fap to. Of course, there is all kinds of Victorian fetish porn, some of it considered classic literature, such as “Venus in Furs,” that is still around and still enjoyed. Should all that be banned?” But one wonders where the line is drawn? A novel with erotic elements is still largely a novel, albeit designed for sexual purposes, but is HD Virtual Reality videos of 18 year old (most likely low SES women) getting XXXX’d in the XXX by 15 guys really the same? A Victorian reading a smutty novel may have gone out and acted upon his desires, but the risk was low, comparatively here is how the modern youth act after being inundated with a free degenerate media:

    A SIXTEEN-year-old girl’s bowel was so badly injured during group sex that she needs to use a colostomy bag for the rest of her life…the girl’s horrific experience was just one in a string of serious injuries to result from porn-addicted Australians trying to imitate aggressive sex they’ve watched online.
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8206253/girl-sex-colostomy-bag-australia-porn-scenes/

    I wonder where a 16 year old, and her cohorts of willing men, perceived the idea of their team up sexual acts from? At 16 years no less. Does one really think ‘DON’T CLICK HERE IF UNDER 18‘ has ever worked at preventing this? Perhaps we should remove seatbelts and not lock up/label chemicals in order to promote further culling of the weak. Why should we restrict anything at all? Children should be free to drink bleach just as they should be free to see the baseless hedonism of the human race at the click of a button!

    One important factor in discussing this is the availability and cost of adult media. There is no cost, there is no barrier to entry, within the modern age. Nearly everyone has an internet capable device and an internet source to connect to. One may talk about restricting drugs, alcohol, or fatty food, but one cannot procure those items without a source of funds. They are already de facto restricted in that one cannot obtain them while you’re at home and have 0 dollars.

    From a report about drug use in Australia: ”

    According to the 2013 National Drug Strategy Household Survey (NDSHS), around
    2.9 million people in Australia aged 14 and over were estimated to have used illicit
    drugs in the previous 12 months”
    https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/e4f7cfc6-3cd5-4cf7-8c7e-dd77e83b8239/ah16-4-5-illicit-drug-use.pdf.aspx

    which is less than 10% of the Australian population, we also see in terms of Methamphetamine frequency (an addictive drug) that only 16% of the recorded users used daily/weekly. Considering this the frequency of addictive drug use is largely a less than weekly thing, less than 50 times a year for a majority of users. How does this compare to adult media usage? Well a study in Poland of students (n=6464) found that 10-15% are daily consumers. So the usage rates within a conservative and religious state are equal, or more than, the consumption rates of highly addictive drug users. I question why one would want to fill their mind with such artificial eroticism daily instead of focusing on stability with a partner to achieve the real thing.

    Polish study source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6571756/

    The answer to real life partners instead of consuming visual media unfortunately seems to be caused by the consumption of the media at the risk to your personal life. As reported:

    •Pornography use increases the marital infidelity rate by more than 300%.xiii
    •40 percent of people identified as “sex addicts” lose their spouses, 58 percent suffer considerable financial losses, and about 33% lose their jobs.xiv
    https://www.webroot.com/us/en/resources/tips-articles/internet-pornography-by-the-numbers

    That seems like a lot of damage to ones personal life for a harmless bit of fun online, but wait it says 33% lose their jobs because of this and as the report follow up “In February 2010, the number of people using a work computer to visit sexually oriented websites was as high as 28%” So we find that over 1/4 of people do not have the willpower or capacity to work through a day without using work property to divulge in the consumption of adult media. Maybe their lack of willpower has something to do with consuming hardcore porn at the same rate of drug users.

    I ask you, and anyone else he consumes adult media, to think about this: Imagine if everytime you consumer porn, you instead consumed drugs or alcohol instead, would you classify your drug/alcohol consumption rates as reasonable? I cannot imagine many people would prefer to do drugs at the rate they consume porn. Both are addictive behaviours that damage you.

    You write two contradictory statements in a row:

    I don’t care if some guy faps so much that he suffers from ED; in fact, I think that’s kind of funny — what an idiot. But it’s not my concern. I certainly don’t think the federal government should intervene — that’s a wild over-reaction.
    [+]
    I agree that, regarding children, it’s the parents’ job to police their offspring’s access

    Interesting to note the common logic between the libertarianesque/pro-porn position media here. On one hand, the state should not intervene to protect citizens from this, on the other guardians should intervene to protect their children. I assume under your thinking as soon as one turns 18 the child should have the right to consume as much porn as they wish, invalidating a parents attempts to protect them. I know that with kids usually parents try to protect them from excessive drinking, drugs, or reckless behaviour, and then at 18 the protections end and you welcome their quick spiral into oblivion as why should they be protected anymore? Perhaps if people looked out for the common weal again, realising that when one leaves the protection/embrace of a househould and family they become part of the embrace of the state/society, we would not let mentally ill and poor women get scalped and railroaded as part of sexual gratification.

    Finally here is a philosophical perspective on the matter. Everytime you consume porn you are outsourcing your intimacy to digital media. Instead of taking part in relations with another you decide to devote your energy and happiness to a foreign virtual object. If you have a partner, each bit of intimacy is stolen from her by you and instead devoted to a virtual woman. This is similar to cheating, in that while you do not have to deal with legitimate consequences of your actions (the fallout of a homewrecker or of other intimate-social relations) you are still siphoning off your energy away from what you should devote to your partner. Look at AE’s graph, almost 40% of heterosexual women think porn should be banned outright. What would the reaction be from an average woman if you told her the amount of time you spent watching it per year? I feel as if most pepole’s partners would be shocked if they admited the truth. Anecdotally, many women I know (across the political spectrum from liberal to conservative) have been very iffy about it and often jumped into a jealous rage when they discovered their partner had watched it unbeknownst to them.

    We must remember just because it has become normalised now, and our position and views warped by modernity, that we don’t not accept it as commonplace. If someone were to go into the woods and sniff leaves, masturbate, and return home once a day it would be bizarre and troubling behaviour. But yet in a society of leafsniffing-jerkers we would be trying to convince people it is unhealthy!

    Just think on it, really think, about your mental and conscious consumption rates of adult media along with your, and perhaps friends, rates of use and think: Is this really safe?

    • Replies: @Autochthon
    Hear, hear, and amen.

    You not only understand the scourge well, but you've a gift at castigating it. This kind of Jeremiad should be in public service announcements, interviews on national radio and television, testimony before legislatures, and <amicus curiae briefs.

    I genuinely encourage you to write a book and attempt a public speaking circuit, perhaps beginning with the collegiate lecture circuit.

    Preach on.
    , @Rosie

    I wonder why mentally ill women are attracted at porn, but it is clearly vice versa, mentally ill women are recruited into porn because they are easy targets.
     
    This.
  43. @Hemid
    A) young men who vote R because the right is the free-speech cool-uncle team now

    B) Munchausen moms who want their sons not just chemically but also social-symbolically castrated—and who aren't partisan Democrats, and who won't do what the TV says and vote against the misogynist evangelicals trying to take their rape-fantasy novels away, and...

    Who's more?

    Is this sudden right-wide porn-ban urgency, from congress to Gab to /pol/, the "Outer Party" trying to throw 2020 by alienating A)?

    Any simpler explanations out there?

    Seems kinda..."emergent."

    We were several months ahead of the curve! (And yes, you’ll notice that this post borrows from–and builds upon–those older posts on account of the sudden salience).

  44. @Observator
    The essential flaw in this neo-patriarchal nonsense is that porn is fantasy sex. Now repeat after me: human beings are eternally fascinated by fantasy because it is not what they do in their actual lives, or necessarily even want to do. Porn is the occasional escape from reality that is essentially to all human emotional balance. Outlawing porn because it damages certain disturbed people who became unhealthily obsessed with it makes as much sense as drug and alcohol prohibition. This business of "we must outlaw this because it makes me anxious" says more about the adjustment of the writer than it does about yet another end-of-the-world scenario.

    Oh and if you think porn is a recent development might want to read the book "Rereading Sex" by Helen Horowitz, which describes the extensive circulation of pornography in the United States in the nineteenth century. Expression of human sexuality is pretty much a constant throughout human history: the only variable from culture to culture is how honest we are about what we all like to do best.

    I think it tells you all you need to know about the good Congressman's psychological issues when he considers "people having sex" to be a "lewd act". Guess how you got here, chief. Wasn't 'cause mommy and daddy were holding hands. But, oh yes, the children, we must save the children! Heaven help us if they don't grow up as maladjusted as we are.

    We’re on the threshold of fornication and procreation being completely separated from one another. Ubiquitous, novel, instantaneous hardcore pornography without cost is similarly historically unprecedented.

    • Replies: @Rapparee
    The New Haven Colony in the 17th century, if memory serves correctly, legislated the death penalty for masturbation. Whether they ever actually had to execute anyone under this law I do not know (I suspect most likely not), but the fact that it was on the books suggests this was not a particularly prevalent vice, and it obviously was not a society with ubiquitous access to pornography. (Bear in mind as well that pre-modern teenagers, unless very, very wealthy, generally did not have private bedrooms).

    Capital punishment for pornographers would never be permitted into law in modern America, but it would still make a heck of a lot more sense than the way we do things now.
  45. @Achmed E. Newman
    Libertarian chimes in anyway:

    It's not the era of the plastic-wrapped Playboys and Penthouses kept on the upper shelf at the 7-Eleven. Yes, anyone can pull up a page, enter some bogus information (maybe you need a real email address), and see all sorts of things. It's not the government's job to sort out what your kid is looking at on the computer. That leads to all kinds of badness, stuff that would affect the alt-right particularly harshly.

    No, it's called BEING A PARENT! You have kids, A.E. I gather you don't think it's OK for anything but maybe a teenage boy once in a while to pull up these sites. Hell, for toddlers, you prevent them from being able to open cabinets with the poisons in them. Then you make sure they understand before they get to 5 and are around that stuff. For teenagers you teach them about drugs before the point they'll get offered the stuff. I would hope they'd listen to you about sitting in front of porno pictures on the internet too.

    It's not like we couldn't get ahold of the girly magazines in my day, 7-Eleven policy not withstanding. For years I didn't understand why our acquaintance's Dad never got on his case about our "borrowing" his stash of Playboys for a month or two, haha. I respected my Dad, but knew he wouldn't have a cow about our having "perused" these publications at that age.

    One practical problem, even for responsible parents, is that kids tend to be more technically savvy than their parents are. To phrase it in a way that will resonate with a libertarian, the regulators will always be a step or three behind those they are tasked with regulating!

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    That's true about the kids. I was thinking of that regarding the, well, what are still called "phones". Perhaps an old Nokia brick would be in order, if any funny stuff is seen on that screen.
    , @Tusk
    I'm not so sure this will hold true going forward. I think that kids in the past 30 years probably were more tech savvy than their parents, but will children being born in the next 30 years be so? Technology is a new invention so I feel as if the people who grew up with it and will start having kids now will probably be better than their kids simply because they will be children compared to parents who have used it their whole lifes. I guess we will see.
  46. @Achmed E. Newman
    Libertarian chimes in anyway:

    It's not the era of the plastic-wrapped Playboys and Penthouses kept on the upper shelf at the 7-Eleven. Yes, anyone can pull up a page, enter some bogus information (maybe you need a real email address), and see all sorts of things. It's not the government's job to sort out what your kid is looking at on the computer. That leads to all kinds of badness, stuff that would affect the alt-right particularly harshly.

    No, it's called BEING A PARENT! You have kids, A.E. I gather you don't think it's OK for anything but maybe a teenage boy once in a while to pull up these sites. Hell, for toddlers, you prevent them from being able to open cabinets with the poisons in them. Then you make sure they understand before they get to 5 and are around that stuff. For teenagers you teach them about drugs before the point they'll get offered the stuff. I would hope they'd listen to you about sitting in front of porno pictures on the internet too.

    It's not like we couldn't get ahold of the girly magazines in my day, 7-Eleven policy not withstanding. For years I didn't understand why our acquaintance's Dad never got on his case about our "borrowing" his stash of Playboys for a month or two, haha. I respected my Dad, but knew he wouldn't have a cow about our having "perused" these publications at that age.

    My father would have felt the same way. But I’m coming to wonder whether they were wrong.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Wait, what? You were that guy with two Dads, like in my kid's Sally, Dick, and Dick books?

    ;-}
  47. @Anonymous
    I'm an older millennial. I grew up with pornography instantly available, unlike earlier generations, but I'm not addicted to it and only look at it now and again. I don't think much about it one way or the other. The fact that others may be obsessed with it doesn't concern me.
    I'm much more concerned about the easy availability of videos and photos of brutal murders and killings and those who enjoy watching them. I'm much more concerned about...well, a lot of things. Pornography is not even in the top 100.
    I notice in this thread already that porn censorship for some is really about controlling what women do or even wear. So it's just part of the routine misogyny that infests the right. Porn censorship, then, is is just another obsession of the hall monitor types among us who want to control what other people do or think even in their personal lives.
    I don't care if some guy faps so much that he suffers from ED; in fact, I think that's kind of funny -- what an idiot. But it's not my concern. I certainly don't think the federal government should intervene -- that's a wild over-reaction.
    I agree that, regarding children, it's the parents' job to police their offspring's access to what's available on-line or elsewhere, whether pornography or other things. It can be argued, of course, that even the most conscientious parent can't control everything. So it's up to the parent to instill values, explain perils, as much by setting a personal example as by words. Don't smoke, don't drink, don't take drugs, don't watch porn (in fact, don't watch TV, period) and it's less likely your kids ever will, either.
    But even if kids do watch porn, I wonder how much harm can it do? The other day I was listening to a talk by Patricia Cornwell, a highly successful author, and she mentioned that she knew what erotic asphyxiation was by the time she was 12. I would assume she learned about that by watching porn. Maybe she learned to indulge in it by seeing photos and videos of others enjoy it. If so, so what? Why should the government, or any other agency, have intervened to prevent her learning about this?
    As far as porn being always available, that's certainly true, although it took a bit more effort to get it, but Tijuana Bibles, one-reel "smokers," and all sorts of that thing have always been around. Porn novels have been around and popular for a long time, not only things like Maxwell Bodenheim's, softcore "Replenishing Jessica," a once very popular book, but hardcore child pornography such as Felix Salten's "Josephine Mutzenbacher," the purported autobiography of a highly sexually active child from the ages of seven to 13. (Salten was also the author of the Bambi story.) People openly bought that novel in bookstores generations ago, doubtless to fap to. Of course, there is all kinds of Victorian fetish porn, some of it considered classic literature, such as "Venus in Furs," that is still around and still enjoyed. Should all that be banned?
    Alcohol, hard drugs, fattening foods, violent video games and pornography are all freely available in today's world. I only drink occasionally, I don't take drugs. I don't dine at fast food restaurants or eat junk food. I don't play video games. The government didn't need to intervene to regulate my activities regarding these things. I do enjoy porn once in a while. So what? And why should the government stop me from doing so?
    My behavior is regulated by me and whatever values, habits and world view my parents inculcated in me. I don't need or want the government to step in and tell me what I should or shouldn't do in my private life.

    It’s not well-adjusted, high-IQ, low time preference adults who need pornography restricted for them.

  48. @Audacious Epigone
    One practical problem, even for responsible parents, is that kids tend to be more technically savvy than their parents are. To phrase it in a way that will resonate with a libertarian, the regulators will always be a step or three behind those they are tasked with regulating!

    That’s true about the kids. I was thinking of that regarding the, well, what are still called “phones”. Perhaps an old Nokia brick would be in order, if any funny stuff is seen on that screen.

  49. @RadicalCenter
    My father would have felt the same way. But I’m coming to wonder whether they were wrong.

    Wait, what? You were that guy with two Dads, like in my kid’s Sally, Dick, and Dick books?

    ;-}

  50. @Observator
    The essential flaw in this neo-patriarchal nonsense is that porn is fantasy sex. Now repeat after me: human beings are eternally fascinated by fantasy because it is not what they do in their actual lives, or necessarily even want to do. Porn is the occasional escape from reality that is essentially to all human emotional balance. Outlawing porn because it damages certain disturbed people who became unhealthily obsessed with it makes as much sense as drug and alcohol prohibition. This business of "we must outlaw this because it makes me anxious" says more about the adjustment of the writer than it does about yet another end-of-the-world scenario.

    Oh and if you think porn is a recent development might want to read the book "Rereading Sex" by Helen Horowitz, which describes the extensive circulation of pornography in the United States in the nineteenth century. Expression of human sexuality is pretty much a constant throughout human history: the only variable from culture to culture is how honest we are about what we all like to do best.

    I think it tells you all you need to know about the good Congressman's psychological issues when he considers "people having sex" to be a "lewd act". Guess how you got here, chief. Wasn't 'cause mommy and daddy were holding hands. But, oh yes, the children, we must save the children! Heaven help us if they don't grow up as maladjusted as we are.

    In this entire strange comment this:

    Porn is the occasional escape from reality that is essentially to all human emotional balance.

    Is the only argument in pornography’s favour, and it is obviously mistaken. It is obviously not essential to emotional balance to have porn.

  51. @Audacious Epigone
    One practical problem, even for responsible parents, is that kids tend to be more technically savvy than their parents are. To phrase it in a way that will resonate with a libertarian, the regulators will always be a step or three behind those they are tasked with regulating!

    I’m not so sure this will hold true going forward. I think that kids in the past 30 years probably were more tech savvy than their parents, but will children being born in the next 30 years be so? Technology is a new invention so I feel as if the people who grew up with it and will start having kids now will probably be better than their kids simply because they will be children compared to parents who have used it their whole lifes. I guess we will see.

  52. These are the new generation porn flicks that hack brains of children and youths:
    https://pornhub.proxiez.in/view_video.php?viewkey=ph5d44c56515b01
    http://pornbimbo.com/video/3899/sissy-hypno-addiction-hd
    https://hypnotube.com/search/bambi/

    How it all began:
    http://www.vivehypnosis.de/?tag=curse
    https://adult.hypnoticwishes.com/wp/hypnosis-files/

    It’s no longer about the generic porn addiction of 10 years ago. It’s about people spending a year telling the mirror their own name, just to be able to reclaim their individual identity. As can be seen in new NoFap forums.

    The same NoFap which (((certain people))) are trying to shut down by lawfare. Yes, they’re suing a self-help porn addiction site, because it shouldn’t exist.

    Every. Single. Time.

    **

    For centuries he waited for his revenge, but now finally it had come, just as his master had promised him. He saw the pathetic descendants of the white christian warriors and artisans, reduced to subhuman status, babbling gratefully at the opportunity to watch their sisters and daughters be gang-banged by savages, while they themselves suck plastic cocks and drink glasses of urine.

    It took many generations of work, but now the revenge was complete. The bloodline was finally broken, the countries–filled with savages, and the last remaining generation of whites were warped, fragmented, and possessed. Yet how proud they had been back in the day. How delicious their defeat from within.

    He looked up and shook his fist at the sky: “And you thought I couldn’t defeat your creations!”

    But then his own master whispered: “We’re not done yet. The Orthodox ones still stand. Continue with the Ukraine experiment of infiltrating their church.”

  53. @Not My Economy
    Sexually explicit content segregated on .xxx TLD
    SSN input required to view
    Waiting period of 36 hours

    "Viewing porn should be harder than buying an AR-15"

    Republicans will never suppress porn.

    Too much money in it.

    Period. All else is air.

  54. @Arthur Pierce
    Imagine thinking the Kritarchy will allow anything to be done about this. But yes, Republicans might eke out a few more elections by railing against porn, while doing nothing to actually get rid of it, and giving tax cuts to the pornographers and foreign aid to the pornographers’ relatives in Israel.

    Exactly. You have the right idea. The problem, as it always is, is money. There is too too much of it porn for it ever ever to be banned again.

  55. @Copyright Expert
    I've long argued that Congress should remove copyright protection for porn. Or, to avoid litigation about what constitutes pornography or obscenity, they could remove copyright protections for all depictions of nudity or sexual activity (with an exception for biology textbooks and the like).

    The Constitution says the ONLY purpose of copyright is to "promote the Progress of Science and useful arts." Who can argue that gratuitous nudity and sex in media is a "useful art"?

    Without copyright protections, the DMCA also doesn't apply, and it gets a lot harder to make money off of porn.

    I think it's absolutely crazy that we currently empower porn producers to use the power of the state to enforce their exclusive right to sell smut.

    Without copyright protections, the DMCA also doesn’t apply, and it gets a lot harder to make money off of porn.

    I think it’s absolutely crazy that we currently empower porn producers to use the power of the state to enforce their exclusive right to sell smut.

    Agreed that is a weapon that should be turned on them. Also 21 minimum age for ‘acting’.

  56. @Big Dick Bandit
    Beyond the moral issue--which definitely resonates with certain audiences--there's the public health one, both mental and physical. Do you think that it's a coincidence that TV is littered with commercials for bonerpill start-ups ("Roman", "Hims") aimed exclusively at millennials? What could possibly be causing this massive wave of impotence in otherwise healthy young men, when previous generations would have laughed at the idea of needing medical assistance 'down there' before the age of 60?

    Maybe, just maybe, it's the infinite stream of increasingly hardcore digital porn being mainlined straight into people's dopamine centers every day from the time they're 12...


    For folks, especially younger ones, who have a pretty laissez faire attitude towards obscenity, this is an angle that works where the moral might not. On a related note, people's willingness to rationalize why their obvious addictions to pornography 'aren't a big deal' is really something to watch; if you suggest to somebody that, hey, it might not be such a good idea to fuck with your brain like that they will immediately start throwing at you all kinds of things 'debunking' the links between porn and poor health. Again, how dumb do you have to be to think that this ""random"" outbreak of impotence is unrelated to the porno epidemic??

    This is an interesting thesis I happen to disagree with.

    Isn’t it more plausible that in highly industrialized societies there are many factors contributing not only to impotence, but even more to desexualization of young people (Japan, Korea)? Porn may be one among others, but plastic & general trends of life, outside of sex industry, could be more important.

    Could increased impotence be just a side effect of any post-modern society? Could it be that “hormonal”, natural sexuality is a sign of healthy- but vanishing dumb pre-modern societies, while imaginative sexuality is becoming the dominant element?

    Considering all plastic, lower sperm count etc.

    And- could it be that homo sapiens is just obsolete, and the most advanced forms of that species will, in not so distant future, be transformed into something different?

    Just speculating…

  57. We need to get rid of the whole visual media and the internet, not just the pornography. The media themselves are a massive social distortion. This cannot be accomplished through legislation, but it may be accomplished through economics. The modern entertainment industry is dependent on communications satellites, trillion-dollar fiber optic infrastructure, and massive server farms sucking down gigawatts of electricity, and this does not even mention the mass manufacture of computers, tablets, TVs, and phones required for the end user to view it all.

    None of this stuff could exist without complex global supply chains, and none of it would be affordable without the oceans of unpayable debt that characterize modern finance. The next geopolitical “reset” will put an end to all of this.

    • Agree: Dissident
  58. @Tusk
    You write "it’s just part of the routine misogyny that infests the right. Porn censorship, then, is is just another obsession of the hall monitor types among us who want to control what other people do or think even in their personal lives." Indeed, the misogyny of the Right is that it doesn't believe that women should be exploited by criminal types who wish to market and sell sexuality, from the New York Times:

    Girls Do Porn is, allegedly, a criminal operation masterminded by a group of people willing to exploit young women for the sake of financial gain. Owner Michael Pratt is a wanted fugitive, and one cameraman has testified to lying to the women who came to shoot what they thought was a quick-cash modeling gig
    https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3kx483/girls-do-porn-sex-trafficking-fbi-indictment
     
    Millions of people watched the videos distributed that the FBI indicted them over, but I guess in your eyes there is nothing wrong with this. Even further, one must assume that operations like Epstein, wherein young exploited women deceive degenerates in denial about their willingness and freedom to copulate, is a fair and logical thing. They are both cases of exploitation of women at the hands of the common masters of those who push this. Further, the negative affects on the 'stars' themselves are clearly horrific since "Mental health issues have always been a big problem in the porn world." I wonder why mentally ill women are attracted at porn, but it is clearly vice versa, mentally ill women are recruited into porn because they are easy targets. If GDP can exploit women coming for a modelling interview, do you think a low SES, poor, and mentally ill woman is going to turn down what appears to be a lucrative offer? One only needs to view the debased behaviour of "professionals" in the industry on efukt to see how these people are being treated. Don't pretend you care about these people. The suicides are just a natural course of business: https://www.unilad.co.uk/featured/the-dark-reason-porn-stars-keep-dying/

    You write "People openly bought that novel in bookstores generations ago, doubtless to fap to. Of course, there is all kinds of Victorian fetish porn, some of it considered classic literature, such as “Venus in Furs,” that is still around and still enjoyed. Should all that be banned?" But one wonders where the line is drawn? A novel with erotic elements is still largely a novel, albeit designed for sexual purposes, but is HD Virtual Reality videos of 18 year old (most likely low SES women) getting XXXX'd in the XXX by 15 guys really the same? A Victorian reading a smutty novel may have gone out and acted upon his desires, but the risk was low, comparatively here is how the modern youth act after being inundated with a free degenerate media:


    A SIXTEEN-year-old girl’s bowel was so badly injured during group sex that she needs to use a colostomy bag for the rest of her life...the girl's horrific experience was just one in a string of serious injuries to result from porn-addicted Australians trying to imitate aggressive sex they've watched online.
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8206253/girl-sex-colostomy-bag-australia-porn-scenes/
     
    I wonder where a 16 year old, and her cohorts of willing men, perceived the idea of their team up sexual acts from? At 16 years no less. Does one really think 'DON'T CLICK HERE IF UNDER 18' has ever worked at preventing this? Perhaps we should remove seatbelts and not lock up/label chemicals in order to promote further culling of the weak. Why should we restrict anything at all? Children should be free to drink bleach just as they should be free to see the baseless hedonism of the human race at the click of a button!

    One important factor in discussing this is the availability and cost of adult media. There is no cost, there is no barrier to entry, within the modern age. Nearly everyone has an internet capable device and an internet source to connect to. One may talk about restricting drugs, alcohol, or fatty food, but one cannot procure those items without a source of funds. They are already de facto restricted in that one cannot obtain them while you're at home and have 0 dollars.

    From a report about drug use in Australia: "


    According to the 2013 National Drug Strategy Household Survey (NDSHS), around
    2.9 million people in Australia aged 14 and over were estimated to have used illicit
    drugs in the previous 12 months"
    https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/e4f7cfc6-3cd5-4cf7-8c7e-dd77e83b8239/ah16-4-5-illicit-drug-use.pdf.aspx

     

    which is less than 10% of the Australian population, we also see in terms of Methamphetamine frequency (an addictive drug) that only 16% of the recorded users used daily/weekly. Considering this the frequency of addictive drug use is largely a less than weekly thing, less than 50 times a year for a majority of users. How does this compare to adult media usage? Well a study in Poland of students (n=6464) found that 10-15% are daily consumers. So the usage rates within a conservative and religious state are equal, or more than, the consumption rates of highly addictive drug users. I question why one would want to fill their mind with such artificial eroticism daily instead of focusing on stability with a partner to achieve the real thing.

    Polish study source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6571756/

    The answer to real life partners instead of consuming visual media unfortunately seems to be caused by the consumption of the media at the risk to your personal life. As reported:

    •Pornography use increases the marital infidelity rate by more than 300%.xiii
    •40 percent of people identified as “sex addicts” lose their spouses, 58 percent suffer considerable financial losses, and about 33% lose their jobs.xiv
    https://www.webroot.com/us/en/resources/tips-articles/internet-pornography-by-the-numbers

     

    That seems like a lot of damage to ones personal life for a harmless bit of fun online, but wait it says 33% lose their jobs because of this and as the report follow up "In February 2010, the number of people using a work computer to visit sexually oriented websites was as high as 28%" So we find that over 1/4 of people do not have the willpower or capacity to work through a day without using work property to divulge in the consumption of adult media. Maybe their lack of willpower has something to do with consuming hardcore porn at the same rate of drug users.

    I ask you, and anyone else he consumes adult media, to think about this: Imagine if everytime you consumer porn, you instead consumed drugs or alcohol instead, would you classify your drug/alcohol consumption rates as reasonable? I cannot imagine many people would prefer to do drugs at the rate they consume porn. Both are addictive behaviours that damage you.

    You write two contradictory statements in a row:


    I don’t care if some guy faps so much that he suffers from ED; in fact, I think that’s kind of funny — what an idiot. But it’s not my concern. I certainly don’t think the federal government should intervene — that’s a wild over-reaction.
    [+]
    I agree that, regarding children, it’s the parents’ job to police their offspring’s access
     
    Interesting to note the common logic between the libertarianesque/pro-porn position media here. On one hand, the state should not intervene to protect citizens from this, on the other guardians should intervene to protect their children. I assume under your thinking as soon as one turns 18 the child should have the right to consume as much porn as they wish, invalidating a parents attempts to protect them. I know that with kids usually parents try to protect them from excessive drinking, drugs, or reckless behaviour, and then at 18 the protections end and you welcome their quick spiral into oblivion as why should they be protected anymore? Perhaps if people looked out for the common weal again, realising that when one leaves the protection/embrace of a househould and family they become part of the embrace of the state/society, we would not let mentally ill and poor women get scalped and railroaded as part of sexual gratification.

    Finally here is a philosophical perspective on the matter. Everytime you consume porn you are outsourcing your intimacy to digital media. Instead of taking part in relations with another you decide to devote your energy and happiness to a foreign virtual object. If you have a partner, each bit of intimacy is stolen from her by you and instead devoted to a virtual woman. This is similar to cheating, in that while you do not have to deal with legitimate consequences of your actions (the fallout of a homewrecker or of other intimate-social relations) you are still siphoning off your energy away from what you should devote to your partner. Look at AE's graph, almost 40% of heterosexual women think porn should be banned outright. What would the reaction be from an average woman if you told her the amount of time you spent watching it per year? I feel as if most pepole's partners would be shocked if they admited the truth. Anecdotally, many women I know (across the political spectrum from liberal to conservative) have been very iffy about it and often jumped into a jealous rage when they discovered their partner had watched it unbeknownst to them.

    We must remember just because it has become normalised now, and our position and views warped by modernity, that we don't not accept it as commonplace. If someone were to go into the woods and sniff leaves, masturbate, and return home once a day it would be bizarre and troubling behaviour. But yet in a society of leafsniffing-jerkers we would be trying to convince people it is unhealthy!

    Just think on it, really think, about your mental and conscious consumption rates of adult media along with your, and perhaps friends, rates of use and think: Is this really safe?

    Hear, hear, and amen.

    You not only understand the scourge well, but you’ve a gift at castigating it. This kind of Jeremiad should be in public service announcements, interviews on national radio and television, testimony before legislatures, and <amicus curiae briefs.

    I genuinely encourage you to write a book and attempt a public speaking circuit, perhaps beginning with the collegiate lecture circuit.

    Preach on.

    • Replies: @Tusk
    Thank you for your kind words Autochthon, I genuinely appreciate them. It is something I have, and do, want to write about so perhaps this is good motivation.

    I think a large part of my frustration on the issue is the simple denial by consumers of any problem at all. The fact that they take it for granted that it is healthy and well adjusted behaviour, and defend it with tenacity!, shows it is a sore spot. As LoutishAngloQuebecker writes at #59 if people tried cutting it out to 0 times per week, or take a month off, I feel a lot of people may realise how addicted they are.
  59. I do not consider myself a big porn guy. I would watch maybe once a week.

    But try cutting it to zero a week. You’ll quickly see that you are indeed addicted. Maybe less severely than others.

    Unfortunately I still give in and watch porn about once a week. But I’m working towards cutting it down.

    I would love for porn to be banned.

    • Replies: @Talha
    Good for you - good luck on quitting completely. Maybe you can ask those who were addicted and are now completely clean, but my guess is that they do not miss it one bit.

    This is also important because, if you want to start a family - you must set a good example as a father for both young men and young women and hypocrisy will not help that.

    Also, since I know you are eventually thinking about starting a family and having a serious influence on the next generation - especially your daughter(s) - I would suggest taking a listen to these two invaluable pieces of advice. This sister is actually the older sibling of one of my college roommates and she and her husband give many talks in our various communities of how to raise children properly and safeguard them from the influences in the environment.

    The father has a very special role in his daughter's life - and is probably the most determinant factor in how she grows up and the kinds of men she looks for attention from - and this needs to be invested into very, very early - and Sister Hina gives some solid tips on how (see below the MORE tag).

    Here's hoping your future daughters grow up pure and wholesome...and off the pole.

    Peace.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHBh7TUuL4Q

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hG3IksSjHKo

    These hadith always come to my mind when I hear her words about the bond between fathers and daughters and how to inculcate it:
    "I never saw anyone who so resembled the Messenger of Allah in his comportment, gestures or mannerisms than his daughter Fāṭima, in how she stood and sat. When she came to visit him, he would stand and kiss her, and sit her down in his place." - narrated by Lady Aisha (ra) in various collections

    "The Prophet (pbuh) in his fatal illness, called his daughter Fatima and told her a secret because of which she started weeping. Then he called her and told her another secret, and she started laughing. When I asked her about that, she replied, 'The Prophet (pbuh) told me that he would die in his fatal illness, and so I wept, but then he secretly told me that from amongst his family, I would be the first to join him, and so I laughed.'" - narrated by Lady Aisha (ra) in Bukhari

    And the advice of regularly taking your daughter out to a meal between just you two every week is just genius.
  60. @LoutishAngloQuebecker
    I do not consider myself a big porn guy. I would watch maybe once a week.

    But try cutting it to zero a week. You'll quickly see that you are indeed addicted. Maybe less severely than others.

    Unfortunately I still give in and watch porn about once a week. But I'm working towards cutting it down.

    I would love for porn to be banned.

    Good for you – good luck on quitting completely. Maybe you can ask those who were addicted and are now completely clean, but my guess is that they do not miss it one bit.

    This is also important because, if you want to start a family – you must set a good example as a father for both young men and young women and hypocrisy will not help that.

    Also, since I know you are eventually thinking about starting a family and having a serious influence on the next generation – especially your daughter(s) – I would suggest taking a listen to these two invaluable pieces of advice. This sister is actually the older sibling of one of my college roommates and she and her husband give many talks in our various communities of how to raise children properly and safeguard them from the influences in the environment.

    The father has a very special role in his daughter’s life – and is probably the most determinant factor in how she grows up and the kinds of men she looks for attention from – and this needs to be invested into very, very early – and Sister Hina gives some solid tips on how (see below the MORE tag).

    Here’s hoping your future daughters grow up pure and wholesome…and off the pole.

    Peace.

    [MORE]

    These hadith always come to my mind when I hear her words about the bond between fathers and daughters and how to inculcate it:
    “I never saw anyone who so resembled the Messenger of Allah in his comportment, gestures or mannerisms than his daughter Fāṭima, in how she stood and sat. When she came to visit him, he would stand and kiss her, and sit her down in his place.” – narrated by Lady Aisha (ra) in various collections

    “The Prophet (pbuh) in his fatal illness, called his daughter Fatima and told her a secret because of which she started weeping. Then he called her and told her another secret, and she started laughing. When I asked her about that, she replied, ‘The Prophet (pbuh) told me that he would die in his fatal illness, and so I wept, but then he secretly told me that from amongst his family, I would be the first to join him, and so I laughed.’” – narrated by Lady Aisha (ra) in Bukhari

    And the advice of regularly taking your daughter out to a meal between just you two every week is just genius.

    • Replies: @LoutishAngloQuebecker
    Thank you. Will watch when I get a little time. I've been busy lately.
  61. This is not a hard issue until one gets into the details. I found it interesting that in the referenced article the advocates for prosecution never cite what statutes they think are operative. I did some checking and found the following fairly detailed cite — ACU is Abilene Christian University affiliated with the Church of Christ.

    https://blogs.acu.edu/commlaw/2009/05/29/obscenity/

    The hurdle has now become that our society has expanded intimate images in what would have been “G” rated films and programming. While I think the “X” rated advances are accurate, I am a fan of local empowerment and more than anything else, the power of parents to

    “train up their child in the way he should go and when he/she is old he will not part far from it.”

    Another reference for the above scripture would say “. . . when he/she is old will not be turned away from it.” Nice reference because it acknowledges the power of outside influence.

  62. @Autochthon
    Hear, hear, and amen.

    You not only understand the scourge well, but you've a gift at castigating it. This kind of Jeremiad should be in public service announcements, interviews on national radio and television, testimony before legislatures, and <amicus curiae briefs.

    I genuinely encourage you to write a book and attempt a public speaking circuit, perhaps beginning with the collegiate lecture circuit.

    Preach on.

    Thank you for your kind words Autochthon, I genuinely appreciate them. It is something I have, and do, want to write about so perhaps this is good motivation.

    I think a large part of my frustration on the issue is the simple denial by consumers of any problem at all. The fact that they take it for granted that it is healthy and well adjusted behaviour, and defend it with tenacity!, shows it is a sore spot. As LoutishAngloQuebecker writes at #59 if people tried cutting it out to 0 times per week, or take a month off, I feel a lot of people may realise how addicted they are.

    • Agree: Autochthon
  63. @Talha
    Good for you - good luck on quitting completely. Maybe you can ask those who were addicted and are now completely clean, but my guess is that they do not miss it one bit.

    This is also important because, if you want to start a family - you must set a good example as a father for both young men and young women and hypocrisy will not help that.

    Also, since I know you are eventually thinking about starting a family and having a serious influence on the next generation - especially your daughter(s) - I would suggest taking a listen to these two invaluable pieces of advice. This sister is actually the older sibling of one of my college roommates and she and her husband give many talks in our various communities of how to raise children properly and safeguard them from the influences in the environment.

    The father has a very special role in his daughter's life - and is probably the most determinant factor in how she grows up and the kinds of men she looks for attention from - and this needs to be invested into very, very early - and Sister Hina gives some solid tips on how (see below the MORE tag).

    Here's hoping your future daughters grow up pure and wholesome...and off the pole.

    Peace.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHBh7TUuL4Q

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hG3IksSjHKo

    These hadith always come to my mind when I hear her words about the bond between fathers and daughters and how to inculcate it:
    "I never saw anyone who so resembled the Messenger of Allah in his comportment, gestures or mannerisms than his daughter Fāṭima, in how she stood and sat. When she came to visit him, he would stand and kiss her, and sit her down in his place." - narrated by Lady Aisha (ra) in various collections

    "The Prophet (pbuh) in his fatal illness, called his daughter Fatima and told her a secret because of which she started weeping. Then he called her and told her another secret, and she started laughing. When I asked her about that, she replied, 'The Prophet (pbuh) told me that he would die in his fatal illness, and so I wept, but then he secretly told me that from amongst his family, I would be the first to join him, and so I laughed.'" - narrated by Lady Aisha (ra) in Bukhari

    And the advice of regularly taking your daughter out to a meal between just you two every week is just genius.

    Thank you. Will watch when I get a little time. I’ve been busy lately.

  64. @Achmed E. Newman
    Libertarian chimes in anyway:

    It's not the era of the plastic-wrapped Playboys and Penthouses kept on the upper shelf at the 7-Eleven. Yes, anyone can pull up a page, enter some bogus information (maybe you need a real email address), and see all sorts of things. It's not the government's job to sort out what your kid is looking at on the computer. That leads to all kinds of badness, stuff that would affect the alt-right particularly harshly.

    No, it's called BEING A PARENT! You have kids, A.E. I gather you don't think it's OK for anything but maybe a teenage boy once in a while to pull up these sites. Hell, for toddlers, you prevent them from being able to open cabinets with the poisons in them. Then you make sure they understand before they get to 5 and are around that stuff. For teenagers you teach them about drugs before the point they'll get offered the stuff. I would hope they'd listen to you about sitting in front of porno pictures on the internet too.

    It's not like we couldn't get ahold of the girly magazines in my day, 7-Eleven policy not withstanding. For years I didn't understand why our acquaintance's Dad never got on his case about our "borrowing" his stash of Playboys for a month or two, haha. I respected my Dad, but knew he wouldn't have a cow about our having "perused" these publications at that age.

    No, it’s called BEING A PARENT!

    This is why libertarians are so out-of-touch with public sentiment. You all greatly exaggerate the power of parenting and underestimate the influence of the social climate.

    Good parents are losing their adult children to opioid addiction and other destructive habits, and the state shouldn’t be in the business of making parents’ jobs harder. To a very large extent, porn has virtually eliminated the benefits of the internet for young people. Any programs you use to block it inevitably reduce the whole device to uselessness, as curious children can’t find anything on it.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Rosie, children have to grow up. Being a parent means helping them grow up to not be that person that starts these addictions from the time they leave home. With this issue, as with many others, a boy having his Dad around helps a whole hell of a lot. Lots of the learning comes purely through example.

    The social climate does matter, but just as most baby-boomers got through fine without becoming remaining potheads their whole lives, with any decent work ethic, a young man can get over this stuff too.

    That's just silly to say that the porn blockers block most of the internet. What I'd noted above is that were you to let the government decide, then more than porn will be blocked, as any power WILL be abused. Unz.com, because of some wording (say in this post here) 5 years back, will be blocked - not really about porn, but the Ministry of Truth can always dig up something. A piece of privately-written software with a weekly or daily updated file to screen out the nasty stuff will in no way "reduce the whole device to uselessness".


    ... the state shouldn’t be in the business of making parents’ jobs harder.
     
    ... water under the bridge, Rosie, lots of water. There goes the Dept. of Education, that brownish much flowing near the left bank ... there's the CPS, that foul-smelling crap over yonder, reminding me of the effluent from a Dave Matthews Band tour bus ... hey, look at those rapids - there's the Civil Rites office and their Affirmative Action policies for anyone and everyone but your straight (till the taxpayer-supported Univ. gets ahold of them) white kids.

    Said the cook in Oliver Twist "you want some more?!"

  65. @Tusk
    You write "it’s just part of the routine misogyny that infests the right. Porn censorship, then, is is just another obsession of the hall monitor types among us who want to control what other people do or think even in their personal lives." Indeed, the misogyny of the Right is that it doesn't believe that women should be exploited by criminal types who wish to market and sell sexuality, from the New York Times:

    Girls Do Porn is, allegedly, a criminal operation masterminded by a group of people willing to exploit young women for the sake of financial gain. Owner Michael Pratt is a wanted fugitive, and one cameraman has testified to lying to the women who came to shoot what they thought was a quick-cash modeling gig
    https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3kx483/girls-do-porn-sex-trafficking-fbi-indictment
     
    Millions of people watched the videos distributed that the FBI indicted them over, but I guess in your eyes there is nothing wrong with this. Even further, one must assume that operations like Epstein, wherein young exploited women deceive degenerates in denial about their willingness and freedom to copulate, is a fair and logical thing. They are both cases of exploitation of women at the hands of the common masters of those who push this. Further, the negative affects on the 'stars' themselves are clearly horrific since "Mental health issues have always been a big problem in the porn world." I wonder why mentally ill women are attracted at porn, but it is clearly vice versa, mentally ill women are recruited into porn because they are easy targets. If GDP can exploit women coming for a modelling interview, do you think a low SES, poor, and mentally ill woman is going to turn down what appears to be a lucrative offer? One only needs to view the debased behaviour of "professionals" in the industry on efukt to see how these people are being treated. Don't pretend you care about these people. The suicides are just a natural course of business: https://www.unilad.co.uk/featured/the-dark-reason-porn-stars-keep-dying/

    You write "People openly bought that novel in bookstores generations ago, doubtless to fap to. Of course, there is all kinds of Victorian fetish porn, some of it considered classic literature, such as “Venus in Furs,” that is still around and still enjoyed. Should all that be banned?" But one wonders where the line is drawn? A novel with erotic elements is still largely a novel, albeit designed for sexual purposes, but is HD Virtual Reality videos of 18 year old (most likely low SES women) getting XXXX'd in the XXX by 15 guys really the same? A Victorian reading a smutty novel may have gone out and acted upon his desires, but the risk was low, comparatively here is how the modern youth act after being inundated with a free degenerate media:


    A SIXTEEN-year-old girl’s bowel was so badly injured during group sex that she needs to use a colostomy bag for the rest of her life...the girl's horrific experience was just one in a string of serious injuries to result from porn-addicted Australians trying to imitate aggressive sex they've watched online.
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8206253/girl-sex-colostomy-bag-australia-porn-scenes/
     
    I wonder where a 16 year old, and her cohorts of willing men, perceived the idea of their team up sexual acts from? At 16 years no less. Does one really think 'DON'T CLICK HERE IF UNDER 18' has ever worked at preventing this? Perhaps we should remove seatbelts and not lock up/label chemicals in order to promote further culling of the weak. Why should we restrict anything at all? Children should be free to drink bleach just as they should be free to see the baseless hedonism of the human race at the click of a button!

    One important factor in discussing this is the availability and cost of adult media. There is no cost, there is no barrier to entry, within the modern age. Nearly everyone has an internet capable device and an internet source to connect to. One may talk about restricting drugs, alcohol, or fatty food, but one cannot procure those items without a source of funds. They are already de facto restricted in that one cannot obtain them while you're at home and have 0 dollars.

    From a report about drug use in Australia: "


    According to the 2013 National Drug Strategy Household Survey (NDSHS), around
    2.9 million people in Australia aged 14 and over were estimated to have used illicit
    drugs in the previous 12 months"
    https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/e4f7cfc6-3cd5-4cf7-8c7e-dd77e83b8239/ah16-4-5-illicit-drug-use.pdf.aspx

     

    which is less than 10% of the Australian population, we also see in terms of Methamphetamine frequency (an addictive drug) that only 16% of the recorded users used daily/weekly. Considering this the frequency of addictive drug use is largely a less than weekly thing, less than 50 times a year for a majority of users. How does this compare to adult media usage? Well a study in Poland of students (n=6464) found that 10-15% are daily consumers. So the usage rates within a conservative and religious state are equal, or more than, the consumption rates of highly addictive drug users. I question why one would want to fill their mind with such artificial eroticism daily instead of focusing on stability with a partner to achieve the real thing.

    Polish study source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6571756/

    The answer to real life partners instead of consuming visual media unfortunately seems to be caused by the consumption of the media at the risk to your personal life. As reported:

    •Pornography use increases the marital infidelity rate by more than 300%.xiii
    •40 percent of people identified as “sex addicts” lose their spouses, 58 percent suffer considerable financial losses, and about 33% lose their jobs.xiv
    https://www.webroot.com/us/en/resources/tips-articles/internet-pornography-by-the-numbers

     

    That seems like a lot of damage to ones personal life for a harmless bit of fun online, but wait it says 33% lose their jobs because of this and as the report follow up "In February 2010, the number of people using a work computer to visit sexually oriented websites was as high as 28%" So we find that over 1/4 of people do not have the willpower or capacity to work through a day without using work property to divulge in the consumption of adult media. Maybe their lack of willpower has something to do with consuming hardcore porn at the same rate of drug users.

    I ask you, and anyone else he consumes adult media, to think about this: Imagine if everytime you consumer porn, you instead consumed drugs or alcohol instead, would you classify your drug/alcohol consumption rates as reasonable? I cannot imagine many people would prefer to do drugs at the rate they consume porn. Both are addictive behaviours that damage you.

    You write two contradictory statements in a row:


    I don’t care if some guy faps so much that he suffers from ED; in fact, I think that’s kind of funny — what an idiot. But it’s not my concern. I certainly don’t think the federal government should intervene — that’s a wild over-reaction.
    [+]
    I agree that, regarding children, it’s the parents’ job to police their offspring’s access
     
    Interesting to note the common logic between the libertarianesque/pro-porn position media here. On one hand, the state should not intervene to protect citizens from this, on the other guardians should intervene to protect their children. I assume under your thinking as soon as one turns 18 the child should have the right to consume as much porn as they wish, invalidating a parents attempts to protect them. I know that with kids usually parents try to protect them from excessive drinking, drugs, or reckless behaviour, and then at 18 the protections end and you welcome their quick spiral into oblivion as why should they be protected anymore? Perhaps if people looked out for the common weal again, realising that when one leaves the protection/embrace of a househould and family they become part of the embrace of the state/society, we would not let mentally ill and poor women get scalped and railroaded as part of sexual gratification.

    Finally here is a philosophical perspective on the matter. Everytime you consume porn you are outsourcing your intimacy to digital media. Instead of taking part in relations with another you decide to devote your energy and happiness to a foreign virtual object. If you have a partner, each bit of intimacy is stolen from her by you and instead devoted to a virtual woman. This is similar to cheating, in that while you do not have to deal with legitimate consequences of your actions (the fallout of a homewrecker or of other intimate-social relations) you are still siphoning off your energy away from what you should devote to your partner. Look at AE's graph, almost 40% of heterosexual women think porn should be banned outright. What would the reaction be from an average woman if you told her the amount of time you spent watching it per year? I feel as if most pepole's partners would be shocked if they admited the truth. Anecdotally, many women I know (across the political spectrum from liberal to conservative) have been very iffy about it and often jumped into a jealous rage when they discovered their partner had watched it unbeknownst to them.

    We must remember just because it has become normalised now, and our position and views warped by modernity, that we don't not accept it as commonplace. If someone were to go into the woods and sniff leaves, masturbate, and return home once a day it would be bizarre and troubling behaviour. But yet in a society of leafsniffing-jerkers we would be trying to convince people it is unhealthy!

    Just think on it, really think, about your mental and conscious consumption rates of adult media along with your, and perhaps friends, rates of use and think: Is this really safe?

    I wonder why mentally ill women are attracted at porn, but it is clearly vice versa, mentally ill women are recruited into porn because they are easy targets.

    This.

  66. @Rosie

    No, it’s called BEING A PARENT!
     
    This is why libertarians are so out-of-touch with public sentiment. You all greatly exaggerate the power of parenting and underestimate the influence of the social climate.

    Good parents are losing their adult children to opioid addiction and other destructive habits, and the state shouldn't be in the business of making parents' jobs harder. To a very large extent, porn has virtually eliminated the benefits of the internet for young people. Any programs you use to block it inevitably reduce the whole device to uselessness, as curious children can't find anything on it.

    Rosie, children have to grow up. Being a parent means helping them grow up to not be that person that starts these addictions from the time they leave home. With this issue, as with many others, a boy having his Dad around helps a whole hell of a lot. Lots of the learning comes purely through example.

    The social climate does matter, but just as most baby-boomers got through fine without becoming remaining potheads their whole lives, with any decent work ethic, a young man can get over this stuff too.

    That’s just silly to say that the porn blockers block most of the internet. What I’d noted above is that were you to let the government decide, then more than porn will be blocked, as any power WILL be abused. Unz.com, because of some wording (say in this post here) 5 years back, will be blocked – not really about porn, but the Ministry of Truth can always dig up something. A piece of privately-written software with a weekly or daily updated file to screen out the nasty stuff will in no way “reduce the whole device to uselessness”.

    … the state shouldn’t be in the business of making parents’ jobs harder.

    … water under the bridge, Rosie, lots of water. There goes the Dept. of Education, that brownish much flowing near the left bank … there’s the CPS, that foul-smelling crap over yonder, reminding me of the effluent from a Dave Matthews Band tour bus … hey, look at those rapids – there’s the Civil Rites office and their Affirmative Action policies for anyone and everyone but your straight (till the taxpayer-supported Univ. gets ahold of them) white kids.

    Said the cook in Oliver Twist “you want some more?!”

    • Replies: @Rosie

    That’s just silly to say that the porn blockers block most of the internet.
     
    Not so. Perhaps other parents can chime in, but I've had no luck with porn blockers.
  67. @Audacious Epigone
    We're on the threshold of fornication and procreation being completely separated from one another. Ubiquitous, novel, instantaneous hardcore pornography without cost is similarly historically unprecedented.

    The New Haven Colony in the 17th century, if memory serves correctly, legislated the death penalty for masturbation. Whether they ever actually had to execute anyone under this law I do not know (I suspect most likely not), but the fact that it was on the books suggests this was not a particularly prevalent vice, and it obviously was not a society with ubiquitous access to pornography. (Bear in mind as well that pre-modern teenagers, unless very, very wealthy, generally did not have private bedrooms).

    Capital punishment for pornographers would never be permitted into law in modern America, but it would still make a heck of a lot more sense than the way we do things now.

  68. @Achmed E. Newman
    Rosie, children have to grow up. Being a parent means helping them grow up to not be that person that starts these addictions from the time they leave home. With this issue, as with many others, a boy having his Dad around helps a whole hell of a lot. Lots of the learning comes purely through example.

    The social climate does matter, but just as most baby-boomers got through fine without becoming remaining potheads their whole lives, with any decent work ethic, a young man can get over this stuff too.

    That's just silly to say that the porn blockers block most of the internet. What I'd noted above is that were you to let the government decide, then more than porn will be blocked, as any power WILL be abused. Unz.com, because of some wording (say in this post here) 5 years back, will be blocked - not really about porn, but the Ministry of Truth can always dig up something. A piece of privately-written software with a weekly or daily updated file to screen out the nasty stuff will in no way "reduce the whole device to uselessness".


    ... the state shouldn’t be in the business of making parents’ jobs harder.
     
    ... water under the bridge, Rosie, lots of water. There goes the Dept. of Education, that brownish much flowing near the left bank ... there's the CPS, that foul-smelling crap over yonder, reminding me of the effluent from a Dave Matthews Band tour bus ... hey, look at those rapids - there's the Civil Rites office and their Affirmative Action policies for anyone and everyone but your straight (till the taxpayer-supported Univ. gets ahold of them) white kids.

    Said the cook in Oliver Twist "you want some more?!"

    That’s just silly to say that the porn blockers block most of the internet.

    Not so. Perhaps other parents can chime in, but I’ve had no luck with porn blockers.

  69. I think you’ll find that any attempts to restrict porn will be shipwrecked by opposition from the LGBT lobby. Only hateful bigots would want to restrict access to gay porn.

    And we’re talking about four members of Congress? Out of all those Congressmen and women there’s a grand total of four who want to do something about this?

  70. I can’t think of a two week period when my computer doesn’t get tagged with salacious material. This morning strange pop ups, of I visit a movie sight or youtube or any search, It’s pervasive, but I don’t buy the argument that exposure is going to boys into maladjusted men, or rapists, murders, pornographers or seriel killers. I think all of the restrictions for children are fine. But there’s a real world out there and kids talk, and share so in my view there had better be more in the game than restricting devices, because boys especially are likely to have some exposure and what ultimately matters is a well prepared mind and being.

    One can block their child from going into the street, but eventually on their own accord, they will cross the street, it’s a good to prepare them on how navigate traffic.

  71. @Achmed E. Newman
    Libertarian chimes in anyway:

    It's not the era of the plastic-wrapped Playboys and Penthouses kept on the upper shelf at the 7-Eleven. Yes, anyone can pull up a page, enter some bogus information (maybe you need a real email address), and see all sorts of things. It's not the government's job to sort out what your kid is looking at on the computer. That leads to all kinds of badness, stuff that would affect the alt-right particularly harshly.

    No, it's called BEING A PARENT! You have kids, A.E. I gather you don't think it's OK for anything but maybe a teenage boy once in a while to pull up these sites. Hell, for toddlers, you prevent them from being able to open cabinets with the poisons in them. Then you make sure they understand before they get to 5 and are around that stuff. For teenagers you teach them about drugs before the point they'll get offered the stuff. I would hope they'd listen to you about sitting in front of porno pictures on the internet too.

    It's not like we couldn't get ahold of the girly magazines in my day, 7-Eleven policy not withstanding. For years I didn't understand why our acquaintance's Dad never got on his case about our "borrowing" his stash of Playboys for a month or two, haha. I respected my Dad, but knew he wouldn't have a cow about our having "perused" these publications at that age.

    If I buried a bunch of landmines in someone’s yard and, in response to their objections, said “what’s wrong with you, aren’t you a good parent? Figure out where the landmines are and keep your kids from stepping on them!”

    Is that a convincing retort? Cuz that’s basically what you’re saying. Instead of chiding people for not being vigilant regarding landmines, how about we stop the jerks from burying explosive traps in kid-accessible places instead?

    • Agree: Dissident
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    I don't think that's any kind of decent analogy, GU. As much as the porno can be disgusting and distracting at times, it's not gonna kill you, and nobody is placing on your property. Yeah, you have to make an effort some time to keep it from coming through the wire, but it doesn't maim you, unless you really overdo it!
  72. @Anonymous
    I'm an older millennial. I grew up with pornography instantly available, unlike earlier generations, but I'm not addicted to it and only look at it now and again. I don't think much about it one way or the other. The fact that others may be obsessed with it doesn't concern me.
    I'm much more concerned about the easy availability of videos and photos of brutal murders and killings and those who enjoy watching them. I'm much more concerned about...well, a lot of things. Pornography is not even in the top 100.
    I notice in this thread already that porn censorship for some is really about controlling what women do or even wear. So it's just part of the routine misogyny that infests the right. Porn censorship, then, is is just another obsession of the hall monitor types among us who want to control what other people do or think even in their personal lives.
    I don't care if some guy faps so much that he suffers from ED; in fact, I think that's kind of funny -- what an idiot. But it's not my concern. I certainly don't think the federal government should intervene -- that's a wild over-reaction.
    I agree that, regarding children, it's the parents' job to police their offspring's access to what's available on-line or elsewhere, whether pornography or other things. It can be argued, of course, that even the most conscientious parent can't control everything. So it's up to the parent to instill values, explain perils, as much by setting a personal example as by words. Don't smoke, don't drink, don't take drugs, don't watch porn (in fact, don't watch TV, period) and it's less likely your kids ever will, either.
    But even if kids do watch porn, I wonder how much harm can it do? The other day I was listening to a talk by Patricia Cornwell, a highly successful author, and she mentioned that she knew what erotic asphyxiation was by the time she was 12. I would assume she learned about that by watching porn. Maybe she learned to indulge in it by seeing photos and videos of others enjoy it. If so, so what? Why should the government, or any other agency, have intervened to prevent her learning about this?
    As far as porn being always available, that's certainly true, although it took a bit more effort to get it, but Tijuana Bibles, one-reel "smokers," and all sorts of that thing have always been around. Porn novels have been around and popular for a long time, not only things like Maxwell Bodenheim's, softcore "Replenishing Jessica," a once very popular book, but hardcore child pornography such as Felix Salten's "Josephine Mutzenbacher," the purported autobiography of a highly sexually active child from the ages of seven to 13. (Salten was also the author of the Bambi story.) People openly bought that novel in bookstores generations ago, doubtless to fap to. Of course, there is all kinds of Victorian fetish porn, some of it considered classic literature, such as "Venus in Furs," that is still around and still enjoyed. Should all that be banned?
    Alcohol, hard drugs, fattening foods, violent video games and pornography are all freely available in today's world. I only drink occasionally, I don't take drugs. I don't dine at fast food restaurants or eat junk food. I don't play video games. The government didn't need to intervene to regulate my activities regarding these things. I do enjoy porn once in a while. So what? And why should the government stop me from doing so?
    My behavior is regulated by me and whatever values, habits and world view my parents inculcated in me. I don't need or want the government to step in and tell me what I should or shouldn't do in my private life.

    *Places fentanyl on your adolescent children’s nightstand every night*

    How much harm could it do? Why take it, do you lack good morals? Etc.

  73. “Is that a convincing retort? Cuz that’s basically what you’re saying. Instead of chiding people for not being vigilant regarding landmines, how about we stop the jerks from burying explosive traps in kid-accessible places instead?”

    The problems with tese advances is that they are predicated on a false premise. The US is not the exclusive backyard of those of us who oppose the material in question. It’s a shared backyard. Now one has every right and wisdom, secure one’s private spaces from landmines, and I fullt support community standards and more conservative measures than that.

    But eventually kids are going to venture into the yard that is shared by the “good” and the ‘not so much” and they will have to navigate an asundary of landmines spaced randomly and some with ill intent — and that is where parenting is vital. I don’t think this is an either or, nor is it children as adults so engage in the material a sign of bad parenting — eventually children have agency.

    When I worked with you and even now with adult students, I see my role as effectively to their health reinforce their agency with sound principles for living.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    correction: When I worked with youth and even now with adult students, I see my role as effectively to their health reinforce their agency with sound principles for living
  74. A lot of us have not yet grasped that the world, at last in the US, has a made a anyone even attempting to live a “clean” upright existence are going to find an increased number of people and agencies seeking to invalidate or impugn that lifestyle.

    So the title “Low Hanging Fruit” is prescient in that way. So that every minute detail becomes suspect. And I think vigilance is required of self not so indict others as well as be aware that the people of faith have been some of the worst purveyors of muddying people by way of gossip, innuendo , etc. as a case for “Poppy Topping” as opposed to bringing another around to right living in Christ. In fact, in will go a step further.

    The Republican muckraking over Miss Lewinski invited just the kind of mud liberals see as swimming pool. White water was fine. But when there was no case, to open up it on that mess in which the president told a “kinda sorta truth” about something so intimate and private as cause for impeachment — then, we made “low hanging fruit” unripe as it is — the fare of the day. And it has cost us.

  75. @EliteCommInc.
    "Is that a convincing retort? Cuz that’s basically what you’re saying. Instead of chiding people for not being vigilant regarding landmines, how about we stop the jerks from burying explosive traps in kid-accessible places instead?"


    The problems with tese advances is that they are predicated on a false premise. The US is not the exclusive backyard of those of us who oppose the material in question. It's a shared backyard. Now one has every right and wisdom, secure one's private spaces from landmines, and I fullt support community standards and more conservative measures than that.

    But eventually kids are going to venture into the yard that is shared by the "good" and the 'not so much" and they will have to navigate an asundary of landmines spaced randomly and some with ill intent -- and that is where parenting is vital. I don't think this is an either or, nor is it children as adults so engage in the material a sign of bad parenting --- eventually children have agency.

    When I worked with you and even now with adult students, I see my role as effectively to their health reinforce their agency with sound principles for living.

    correction: When I worked with youth and even now with adult students, I see my role as effectively to their health reinforce their agency with sound principles for living

  76. @GU
    If I buried a bunch of landmines in someone’s yard and, in response to their objections, said “what’s wrong with you, aren’t you a good parent? Figure out where the landmines are and keep your kids from stepping on them!”

    Is that a convincing retort? Cuz that’s basically what you’re saying. Instead of chiding people for not being vigilant regarding landmines, how about we stop the jerks from burying explosive traps in kid-accessible places instead?

    I don’t think that’s any kind of decent analogy, GU. As much as the porno can be disgusting and distracting at times, it’s not gonna kill you, and nobody is placing on your property. Yeah, you have to make an effort some time to keep it from coming through the wire, but it doesn’t maim you, unless you really overdo it!

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    As much as the porno can be disgusting and distracting at times, it’s not gonna kill you, and nobody is placing on your property. Yeah, you have to make an effort some time to keep it from coming through the wire, but it doesn’t maim you, unless you really overdo it!
     
    I think you really have to distinguish between different types of porn. You're not going to win a fight to ban all porn and if you try you'll find that nobody will listen to you. You're not going to turn the clock back to 1950.

    And the differences between different types of porn are profound. Softcore porn (the old girlie magazine type of thing and the old-style softcore movies) is something that not everybody approves of but it really is pretty harmless. Hardcore is a whole different thing. It's different in content but it's also different in its effect on the viewer.

    Softcore porn is naked women and it's people having sex. Hardcore porn is body parts having sex. Softcore porn is for the most part people having normal sex. Hardcore porn is body parts having often abnormal sex (it's been a major factor in the horrifying normalisation of sodomy among heterosexuals). These differences between softcore and hardcore are in my view incredibly significant. One is (relatively) healthy, one is definitely unhealthy.

    What I'm going to say next will undoubtedly upset a lot of people. I'd prefer to see fewer restrictions on softcore porn, but much greater restrictions on the hardcore stuff. The reason being that if people are going to look at porn I'd much prefer to point them in the direction of the softcore material and away from the hardcore material.
  77. @Athletic and Whitesplosive
    t.degenerate

    Outlawing porn because it damages certain disturbed people who became unhealthily obsessed with it makes as much sense as drug and alcohol prohibition.
     
    Yeah, tons of sense in plenty of circumstances. Given that it serves no positive purpose, damages everyone that uses it, and becomes completely crippling for many, it's basically an unalloyed evil. Alcohol is fine for most in social situations (excluding indios), and marijuana has some few medicinal purposes; all rationalizations for the "benefits" of pornography are 100% garbage.

    Oh and if you think porn is a recent development might want to read the book “Rereading Sex” by Helen Horowitz, which describes the extensive circulation of pornography in the United States in the nineteenth century. Expression of human sexuality is pretty much a constant throughout human history: the only variable from culture to culture is how honest we are about what we all like to do best.
     
    Garbage rationalizations from an apologist for moral filth [(((Horrowitz))), hmmm...]. There's a 0% chance that the pervasiveness and volume of modern pornography is at all comparable to any other era, to say nothing of the steeply accelerating perversity of the material itself. The average pornhub video makes hustler look like Sears catalogue. And it's a disingenuous argument anyway, who the hell ever said perversion was something novel? Murder's nothing new either, I mean we all must just be repressed murderers, right?

    I think it tells you all you need to know about the good Congressman’s psychological issues when he considers “people having sex” to be a “lewd act”
     
    Everybody shits, therefore a graphic video of shit coming out of your ass isn't "lewd", according to your idiot logic. Even a moron usually understands the distinction between things which should be done in private vs displayed broadly to the public

    But, oh yes, the children, we must save the children! Heaven help us if they don’t grow up as maladjusted as we are
     
    Yeah, what stupid prudes, concerned for the welfare of children who are exposed to insanely perverted filth that would make nero blush, trivially accessed (even accidentally) from every computer on earth! Since you're just a callous freak without concern for anyone but yourself, you rationalize the extremely well-founded concern for the most vulnerable people there are to be intrinsically without merit. You're a worm.

    There’s a 0% chance that the pervasiveness and volume of modern pornography is at all comparable to any other era, to say nothing of the steeply accelerating perversity of the material itself. The average pornhub video makes hustler look like Sears catalogue.

    Yes, exactly! There is absolutely no comparison– on both counts. It’s night and day. Apples to elephants. I commend you as well as Talha and anyone else I may have missed at the moment who made this point. The infernal abyss that the vaunted blessings of technology has opened-up before every child makes the likes of Playboy look downright wholesome in comparison.

    Another major point glossed over by the defenders/apologists is that of ubiquitous availability. And again, I commend you, Talha and others, such as Tusk for pointing this out. As Tusk wrote in what was another excellent post in this thread,

    There is no cost, there is no barrier to entry, within the modern age. Nearly everyone has an internet capable device and an internet source to connect to.

    Parental controls and filters, it must be noted, are little more than a joke– one that you can be sure countless numbers of kids are laughing at as we speak. (Think blocking at the network level is foolproof? Ever hear of public and neighbors’ WiFi? Restrict all devices in your household and which you’ve given your kid from being able to connect to any network other than your own, which you’ve locked-down at multiple levels? Guess you don’t know much about Tor, or the extremely easy ability for anyone with minimal tech savvy to boot into a Linux live system. Think one can’t access much smut without providing a valid credit card or other payment credentials? Think again. 4Chan and similar imageboard sites are just what come to mind immediately as the most salient example…)

    But even if it were possible to effectively lockdown all of the devices within one’s control, good luck keeping your kid away from a schoolmate who’s worked his way around restrictions that may have been placed on his smartphone, tablet or laptop…or from using one of the computers in a public library, or perhaps even one of the computers at his school

    the distinction between things which should be done in private vs displayed broadly to the public

    BINGO! again. I made this point in one of the last threads on the topic of porn: The conflation between sex, per se and gratuitious, graphic exhibitions and depictions of sex. The assertion that objection to the latter equates-to objection to the former is simply preposterous. (Similiarly, with regard to the way that those who object to promiscuity, excess, and perversion in matters sexual are often absurdly condemned as opposing sex, per se. Strawmen.)

    Another distinction that is often lost in discussions such as these is that of how one views a given phenomenon itself, in this case pornography, vs. one’s position on how it should be treated from a legal standpoint. Whether pornography, drugs, adultery, fornication (or even masturbation (!), as per Rapparee’s citation), or any number of other examples, one can maintain that something is indeed a vice that is best avoided (or at least greatly minimized) but should nonetheless not be illegal or at least not subject to criminal penalty. I’m not saying that this is my position here but merely pointing-out that it is one that is possible to take.

    [(((Horrowitz))), hmmm…].

    Pity that you had to detract from what was otherwise an excellent post by including this bit of gratutious Jew-baiting.

    Yes, Jews have been overrepresented in porn itself as well as among those who defend it. The facts nonetheless remain that:
    – Both categories also include plenty of non-Jews
    (Hugh Heffner, Bob Guccione and Larry Flynt are perhaps the three most well-known figures in porn, and perhaps the three most influential. Last I checked, not one of them was Jewish. Luke Ford, who has documented the porn industry and acknowledged the prevalence of Jews in it has also said that he does not believe that porn would be any less prevalaent, depraved or influential had Jews not been involved in it.)

    – Such Jews are overwhelmingly secular/irreligious at a minimum and, in many cases, downright hostile to religion and vehemently atheistic. As such, they are hardly representative of Judaism. Authentic Judaism easily rivals any other religion in condemning smut and sexual immorality.

    – However many the total number of Jews involved/implicated/complicit/culpabale in porn is, it does not come close to comprising even a majority of the Jewish population at-large.

    – There are also plenty of Jews who are emphatically anti-porn. (Essentially, any Jew would have to be if he is committed-to Judaism, even if he may not be outspoken or active in such opposition.)

    I am reminded of a woman who was one of the leading crusaders against pornography of a past generation and who I am fairly certain was a Jewess. Unfortunately, her name escapes me at the moment. I also note that a number of prominent feminists, for all of their other faults, have been anti-porn. As I suspect you are well aware, feminism is another of those areas in which Jews are overrepresented.

    As relevant polling data such as that furnished by our host show, a great number of people across the population take a less-than-positive view of porn. The number, however one slices it, remains far greater than that of those who simplistically blame Jews for the evils and ills of the world. Revealing oneself as one of the latter inevitably results in turning-off and alienating any number of people who would otherwise be sympathetic and receptive to the arguments one is presenting. This holds true for just about any just and noble cause.

    MikeatMikedotMike and others make a valid point about the filth that permeates pop culture offerings such as television, film, and (what passes for) music.

    Since you’re just a callous freak without concern for anyone but yourself, you rationalize the extremely well-founded concern for the most vulnerable people there are to be intrinsically without merit. You’re a worm.

    I must add, as well, that resorting to this kind of ad hominem only detracts from one’s credibility and effectiveness, while degrading the discourse. The heat is increased, while the light is lessened. Stick to argument from facts and logic (and, perhaps, appeals to nobler instincts).

    t.degenerate

    Incidentally, perhaps someone could be so kind to explain this “t.___” convention that I’ve seen a number of times?

    • Replies: @Tusk
    It's from 4chan. It's Swedish (I think) and has to do with letters iirc, it just means 'signed'.

    So I could write:

    Signed, Tusk.
    or
    t. Tusk

    In this case t. degnerate means the post was written by a degenerate. Similarly one could say "Israel is the greatest state in the world, t. Zionist" to which I am admitting that perspective was written by a Zionist.
  78. @Achmed E. Newman
    I don't think that's any kind of decent analogy, GU. As much as the porno can be disgusting and distracting at times, it's not gonna kill you, and nobody is placing on your property. Yeah, you have to make an effort some time to keep it from coming through the wire, but it doesn't maim you, unless you really overdo it!

    As much as the porno can be disgusting and distracting at times, it’s not gonna kill you, and nobody is placing on your property. Yeah, you have to make an effort some time to keep it from coming through the wire, but it doesn’t maim you, unless you really overdo it!

    I think you really have to distinguish between different types of porn. You’re not going to win a fight to ban all porn and if you try you’ll find that nobody will listen to you. You’re not going to turn the clock back to 1950.

    And the differences between different types of porn are profound. Softcore porn (the old girlie magazine type of thing and the old-style softcore movies) is something that not everybody approves of but it really is pretty harmless. Hardcore is a whole different thing. It’s different in content but it’s also different in its effect on the viewer.

    Softcore porn is naked women and it’s people having sex. Hardcore porn is body parts having sex. Softcore porn is for the most part people having normal sex. Hardcore porn is body parts having often abnormal sex (it’s been a major factor in the horrifying normalisation of sodomy among heterosexuals). These differences between softcore and hardcore are in my view incredibly significant. One is (relatively) healthy, one is definitely unhealthy.

    What I’m going to say next will undoubtedly upset a lot of people. I’d prefer to see fewer restrictions on softcore porn, but much greater restrictions on the hardcore stuff. The reason being that if people are going to look at porn I’d much prefer to point them in the direction of the softcore material and away from the hardcore material.

  79. @Dissident

    There’s a 0% chance that the pervasiveness and volume of modern pornography is at all comparable to any other era, to say nothing of the steeply accelerating perversity of the material itself. The average pornhub video makes hustler look like Sears catalogue.
     
    Yes, exactly! There is absolutely no comparison-- on both counts. It's night and day. Apples to elephants. I commend you as well as Talha and anyone else I may have missed at the moment who made this point. The infernal abyss that the vaunted blessings of technology has opened-up before every child makes the likes of Playboy look downright wholesome in comparison.

    Another major point glossed over by the defenders/apologists is that of ubiquitous availability. And again, I commend you, Talha and others, such as Tusk for pointing this out. As Tusk wrote in what was another excellent post in this thread,


    There is no cost, there is no barrier to entry, within the modern age. Nearly everyone has an internet capable device and an internet source to connect to.
     
    Parental controls and filters, it must be noted, are little more than a joke-- one that you can be sure countless numbers of kids are laughing at as we speak. (Think blocking at the network level is foolproof? Ever hear of public and neighbors' WiFi? Restrict all devices in your household and which you've given your kid from being able to connect to any network other than your own, which you've locked-down at multiple levels? Guess you don't know much about Tor, or the extremely easy ability for anyone with minimal tech savvy to boot into a Linux live system. Think one can't access much smut without providing a valid credit card or other payment credentials? Think again. 4Chan and similar imageboard sites are just what come to mind immediately as the most salient example...)

    But even if it were possible to effectively lockdown all of the devices within one's control, good luck keeping your kid away from a schoolmate who's worked his way around restrictions that may have been placed on his smartphone, tablet or laptop...or from using one of the computers in a public library, or perhaps even one of the computers at his school...


    the distinction between things which should be done in private vs displayed broadly to the public
     
    BINGO! again. I made this point in one of the last threads on the topic of porn: The conflation between sex, per se and gratuitious, graphic exhibitions and depictions of sex. The assertion that objection to the latter equates-to objection to the former is simply preposterous. (Similiarly, with regard to the way that those who object to promiscuity, excess, and perversion in matters sexual are often absurdly condemned as opposing sex, per se. Strawmen.)

    Another distinction that is often lost in discussions such as these is that of how one views a given phenomenon itself, in this case pornography, vs. one's position on how it should be treated from a legal standpoint. Whether pornography, drugs, adultery, fornication (or even masturbation (!), as per Rapparee's citation), or any number of other examples, one can maintain that something is indeed a vice that is best avoided (or at least greatly minimized) but should nonetheless not be illegal or at least not subject to criminal penalty. I'm not saying that this is my position here but merely pointing-out that it is one that is possible to take.


    [(((Horrowitz))), hmmm…].
     
    Pity that you had to detract from what was otherwise an excellent post by including this bit of gratutious Jew-baiting.

    Yes, Jews have been overrepresented in porn itself as well as among those who defend it. The facts nonetheless remain that:
    - Both categories also include plenty of non-Jews
    (Hugh Heffner, Bob Guccione and Larry Flynt are perhaps the three most well-known figures in porn, and perhaps the three most influential. Last I checked, not one of them was Jewish. Luke Ford, who has documented the porn industry and acknowledged the prevalence of Jews in it has also said that he does not believe that porn would be any less prevalaent, depraved or influential had Jews not been involved in it.)

    - Such Jews are overwhelmingly secular/irreligious at a minimum and, in many cases, downright hostile to religion and vehemently atheistic. As such, they are hardly representative of Judaism. Authentic Judaism easily rivals any other religion in condemning smut and sexual immorality.

    - However many the total number of Jews involved/implicated/complicit/culpabale in porn is, it does not come close to comprising even a majority of the Jewish population at-large.

    - There are also plenty of Jews who are emphatically anti-porn. (Essentially, any Jew would have to be if he is committed-to Judaism, even if he may not be outspoken or active in such opposition.)

    I am reminded of a woman who was one of the leading crusaders against pornography of a past generation and who I am fairly certain was a Jewess. Unfortunately, her name escapes me at the moment. I also note that a number of prominent feminists, for all of their other faults, have been anti-porn. As I suspect you are well aware, feminism is another of those areas in which Jews are overrepresented.

    As relevant polling data such as that furnished by our host show, a great number of people across the population take a less-than-positive view of porn. The number, however one slices it, remains far greater than that of those who simplistically blame Jews for the evils and ills of the world. Revealing oneself as one of the latter inevitably results in turning-off and alienating any number of people who would otherwise be sympathetic and receptive to the arguments one is presenting. This holds true for just about any just and noble cause.

    MikeatMikedotMike and others make a valid point about the filth that permeates pop culture offerings such as television, film, and (what passes for) music.


    Since you’re just a callous freak without concern for anyone but yourself, you rationalize the extremely well-founded concern for the most vulnerable people there are to be intrinsically without merit. You’re a worm.
     
    I must add, as well, that resorting to this kind of ad hominem only detracts from one's credibility and effectiveness, while degrading the discourse. The heat is increased, while the light is lessened. Stick to argument from facts and logic (and, perhaps, appeals to nobler instincts).

    t.degenerate
     
    Incidentally, perhaps someone could be so kind to explain this "t.___" convention that I've seen a number of times?

    It’s from 4chan. It’s Swedish (I think) and has to do with letters iirc, it just means ‘signed’.

    So I could write:

    Signed, Tusk.
    or
    t. Tusk

    In this case t. degnerate means the post was written by a degenerate. Similarly one could say “Israel is the greatest state in the world, t. Zionist” to which I am admitting that perspective was written by a Zionist.

    • Replies: @Dissident
    Thank you for explaining, Tusk. And also for your compliment in the new thread.

    Some good points, "baked georgia".

    Since this thread can be expected to be closed for comments at any moment now, I would suggest that any additional comments people may wish to make on the topic of porn be posted to the new thread, It's Raining Pornography created December 22nd.

  80. they should raise the age of 21 to “performers”.

    the idea that somebody with 20 years old and 11 months can’t legally buy a beer, while someone with 18 years old and one day can appear in a gang bang anal video for millions to see, is insane.

    making condoms compulsory is also good. too bad voters fall for the “Liberty” crap and voted against it. If you restrict porn production in your state, they’ll move to others. so at least you remove the problem for a certain area

  81. @Tusk
    It's from 4chan. It's Swedish (I think) and has to do with letters iirc, it just means 'signed'.

    So I could write:

    Signed, Tusk.
    or
    t. Tusk

    In this case t. degnerate means the post was written by a degenerate. Similarly one could say "Israel is the greatest state in the world, t. Zionist" to which I am admitting that perspective was written by a Zionist.

    Thank you for explaining, Tusk. And also for your compliment in the new thread.

    Some good points, “baked georgia”.

    Since this thread can be expected to be closed for comments at any moment now, I would suggest that any additional comments people may wish to make on the topic of porn be posted to the new thread, It’s Raining Pornography created December 22nd.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS