Do you think that punishing pornographers would right?

[Oneracon]

How are you going to pass this law, since as this thread demonstrates, most people disagree with you? Perhaps a small clique of radfems will overthrow the american military and establish a dictatorship? Perhaps you'll join a voting bloc with the conservative Christians, and eventually just sort of merge into their movement?

You've essentially described an inversion of the back story of The Handmaid's Tale.

I think 24/7 government surveillance of the production process is the answer to OP's dilemma - that way you ensure no rights are broken and everything is done to the good letter of the law. There is no privacy intrusion since recording already occurs as a necessary part of the process, and it would create a large number of consistently high-attendance and high-satisfaction jobs, as well. Sounds like a win-win to me.

Fuck no. I don't need some government agency snooping in on my porn habits. Besides who knows what would happen if some sort of homophobic government would use that to their advantage

This is something I can't emphasize enough and it's not even limited to "homophobic" governments or surveillance of the production and consumption of pornography.

Canadian customs and border agencies (for example) have a long history of using anti-obscenity laws, which are supported by anti-pornography feminist groups such as LEAF, to disproportionately target shipments of LGBT books and other materials for disruption and delay.

[Bressen]

the same punishments already in force under the Nordic Model (criminalization of men buying women's bodies) in Sweden

Because prostitution and being a porn actress (hey, what about the actors? I think you somehow forgot them in the cause, huh?) is the same of a man buying a woman's body. Brilliant logic, keep up with your nonsense radfem.

I really don't understand the argument of ''prostitution is a man buying a woman's body'' (not to mention it goes both ways and the same way; woman-buying-man, man-buying-man, woman-buying-woman) anyway, since it frames this interaction as a negative occurrence when, under a system of legalised and regulated prostitution, it is a voluntary exchange of services. The buyer is getting sex, the worker is getting money - both parties are happy. Ideological oppositions to prostitution don't change the fact that it's a positive occurrence, no matter how many times you refer to the fact that it ''teaches men to treat women as objects''.

Not to mention, if you seek to bring up the fact that the female worker isn't happy with the profession of a prostitute and thus is only doing it as a necessity, then we should then criminalise all job fields that result in unhappy workers - I'm not particularly happy with my part-time job as a dish washer, but I do it because I need money and I suck up the fact that it makes me unhappy in order to make this money.

[United Muscovite Nations]

A) How does that prove that it is wrong? What people want is entirely irrelevant to the question of "Is a certain action morally correct". Consequentialism is a bunk moral ideology; if actions are not good and bad by virtue of their own merit, then actions do not have moral value.
B) You changed it from "Most people think Reagan was a bad president" to "Most educated people think he was a bad president".

A) Do you want your existence ended, yes or no?
B) No, most people do hate Reagan, and the majority of educated people think he's terrible. Any questions?

A) I would, but what I want is entirely irrelevant to what is morally good.
B) http://www.gallup.com/poll/145064/kenne ... owest.aspx

In 2010, 74% of Americans approved of how Reagan performed as President. You're hilariously misinformed about Reagan's approval numbers.

[Annihitor the Incred]

I really don't understand the argument of ''prostitution is a man buying a woman's body'' (not to mention it goes both ways and the same way; woman-buying-man, man-buying-man, woman-buying-woman) anyway, since it frames this interaction as a negative occurrence when, under a system of legalised and regulated prostitution, it is a voluntary exchange of services. The buyer is getting sex, the worker is getting money - both parties are happy. Ideological oppositions to prostitution don't change the fact that it's a positive occurrence, no matter how many times you refer to the fact that it ''teaches men to treat women as objects''.

Well, technically both the buyer and seller are getting sex, but I see what you mean.

Still, the whole tangent has little to nothing to do with pornography.

[Bressen]

Well, technically both the buyer and seller are getting sex, but I see what you mean.

Still, the whole tangent has little to nothing to do with pornography.

Admittedly, it's off-topic, but it's not unrelated since prostitution has been brought up by other people (including the OP, if I'm reading quotes correctly). Relevant, but still off-topic.

[Great Minarchistan]

B) No, most people do hate Reagan, and the majority of educated people think he's terrible. Any questions?

Yes, I do have one. Winning by a landslide twice is considered as "hated by the most"?

[Neo Balka]

B) No, most people do hate Reagan, and the majority of educated people think he's terrible. Any questions?

Yes, I do have one. Winning by a landslide twice is considered as "hated by the most"?

"da Russians hack the dnc back then too!"

[Bressen]

B) No, most people do hate Reagan, and the majority of educated people think he's terrible. Any questions?

Yes, I do have one. Winning by a landslide twice is considered as "hated by the most"?

Jesus, his popularity even increased after his first term.

[Annihitor the Incred]

Well, technically both the buyer and seller are getting sex, but I see what you mean.

Still, the whole tangent has little to nothing to do with pornography.

Admittedly, it's off-topic, but it's not unrelated since prostitution has been brought up by other people (including the OP, if I'm reading quotes correctly). Relevant, but still off-topic.

Aye, something of a mixed bag.

[Xeng He]

Given wider access to pornography is correlated with a reduction in rape rates, why do you want more people raped, OP?

I find evidence of a correlation, though.

Though, if the OP is concerned, sales tax might work. Or like banning porn sites that don't charge up to certain prices or limit views.

[Bressen]

Given wider access to pornography is correlated with a reduction in rape rates, why do you want more people raped, OP?

I find evidence of a correlation, though.

Though, if the OP is concerned, sales tax might work. Or like banning porn sites that don't charge up to certain prices or limit views.

Given the level of confusion about the meaning of pornography, it may be useful if it is defined for the purposes of this paper. The (unanimous) Canadian Supreme Court redefinition of pornography, in February 1992, as material that degrades women or promotes violence is the interpretation used here (Supreme Court of Canada 1992). This paper's concern is not about putting fig leaves on classical statues; it is about the increasingly virulent tide of material in which the primary concern appears to be to demean women and reassert their treatment as inferiors

Either I'm reading this wrong, or the Canadian Supreme Court made a drastic and extremely idiotic decision to redefine pornography in such a way that it always degrades or promotes violence against women.
If it's the latter, then surely the study of the correlation between pornography and sexual violence is inherently flawed as it uses a definition that categorises pornography in such a way that it has to be degrading or violent towards women.

EDIT: Just read the language of this study and it's pretty obvious they have an agenda behind it.

[Proctopeo]

I find evidence of a correlation, though.

Though, if the OP is concerned, sales tax might work. Or like banning porn sites that don't charge up to certain prices or limit views.

Given the level of confusion about the meaning of pornography, it may be useful if it is defined for the purposes of this paper. The (unanimous) Canadian Supreme Court redefinition of pornography, in February 1992, as material that degrades women or promotes violence is the interpretation used here (Supreme Court of Canada 1992). This paper's concern is not about putting fig leaves on classical statues; it is about the increasingly virulent tide of material in which the primary concern appears to be to demean women and reassert their treatment as inferiors

Either I'm reading this wrong, or the Canadian Supreme Court made a drastic and extremely idiotic decision to redefine pornography in such a way that it always degrades or promotes violence against women.
If it's the latter, then surely the study of the correlation between pornography and sexual violence is inherently flawed as it uses a definition that categorises pornography in such a way that it has to be degrading or violent towards women.

According to Canada, most porn isn't porn, if I'm reading that right.

[Annihitor the Incred]

Given the level of confusion about the meaning of pornography, it may be useful if it is defined for the purposes of this paper. The (unanimous) Canadian Supreme Court redefinition of pornography, in February 1992, as material that degrades women or promotes violence is the interpretation used here (Supreme Court of Canada 1992). This paper's concern is not about putting fig leaves on classical statues; it is about the increasingly virulent tide of material in which the primary concern appears to be to demean women and reassert their treatment as inferiors

Either I'm reading this wrong, or the Canadian Supreme Court made a drastic and extremely idiotic decision to redefine pornography in such a way that it always degrades or promotes violence against women.
If it's the latter, then surely the study of the correlation between pornography and sexual violence is inherently flawed as it uses a definition that categorises pornography in such a way that it has to be degrading or violent towards women.

According to Canada, most porn isn't porn, if I'm reading that right.

Apparently Star Wars is porn by that definition.

[Galloism]

Given wider access to pornography is correlated with a reduction in rape rates, why do you want more people raped, OP?

I find evidence of a correlation, though.

I found reverse correlation, along with the interesting observation that rapists watch less porn than the general population.

[Galloism]

According to Canada, most porn isn't porn, if I'm reading that right.

Apparently Star Wars is porn by that definition.

Let the force flow through you, let it flow hard.

[Minoa]

Where is the "regulate the industry" option in the polls?

[Great Minarchistan]

Where is the "regulate the industry" option in the polls?

How would regulated porn be? "Condom is mandatory"?

[New haven america]

B) No, most people do hate Reagan, and the majority of educated people think he's terrible. Any questions?

Yes, I do have one. Winning by a landslide twice is considered as "hated by the most"?

That was 3-4 decades ago, young one.

[Chessmistress]

Where is the "regulate the industry" option in the polls?

As stated in the OP, the main worries aren't about what happens within the sexrape industry, but what happens to men when the final product reach them, and how those men behave towards women.
That's why "regulate the sexrape industry" cannot be really effective to fight such outcome.

[Bressen]

Where is the "regulate the industry" option in the polls?

As stated in the OP, the main worries aren't about what happens within the sexrape industry, but what happens to men when the final product reach them, and how those men behave towards women.
That's why "regulate the sexrape industry" cannot be really effective to fight such outcome.

an outcome that has repeatedly been proven to be nonexistent, yet the people who are saying it exists are reluctant to concede even in the face of evidence

[Great Minarchistan]

Yes, I do have one. Winning by a landslide twice is considered as "hated by the most"?

That was 3-4 decades ago, young one.

Most voters of that time are still alive as of now. Reagan's popularity was even showed at HuffPo.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Yes, I do have one. Winning by a landslide twice is considered as "hated by the most"?

(Image)

(Image)

That was 3-4 decades ago, young one.

I provided much more recent evidence that Reagan is loved. Just accept that your "Most people hate Reagan" was completely full of shit.

[Gauthier]

Where is the "regulate the industry" option in the polls?

As stated in the OP, the main worries aren't about what happens within the sexrape industry, but what happens to men when the final product reach them, and how those men behave towards women.
That's why "regulate the sexrape industry" cannot be really effective to fight such outcome.

If porn drove all men to rape, why isn't there a rape apocalypse all over the world? I've watched porn and I haven't felt like raping the first woman that gets close to me.

[New haven america]

Where is the "regulate the industry" option in the polls?

As stated in the OP, the main worries aren't about what happens within the sexrape industry, but what happens to men when the final product reach them, and how those men behave towards women.
That's why "regulate the sexrape industry" cannot be really effective to fight such outcome.

As brought up multiple times (You can look through the thread), porn actually lowers rape and sexual violence. Though, I'm not surprised you ignored those post, you tend to do that.

[Valgora]

That was 3-4 decades ago, young one.

I provided much more recent evidence that Reagan is loved. Just accept that your "Most people hate Reagan" was completely full of shit.

This isn't the topic to talk about fucking Regan.

This topic to talk about fucking porn and prostitution and how the OP is wrong about it.