Should Pornography be banned in the US?

[Fahran]

Anything touching porn gets many people's, uhm, knickers on a twist.

The libertarians flock to any thread concerning porn. In previous ones, they even objected to regulations that would have penalized corporations for hosting revenge porn, child born, or videos depicting sexual violence. Which tempts me to just go scorched earth, but I'm a gracious woman truly.

[Name 0]

It should be banned, to be honest. Immature.

Lot of bans in the future if immaturity is the criterion. Tons of comedy, tons of media in general, children...

Everything should be family-friendly, so that we are safe and happy and it can lower down suicide rates.

[Delvian States]

Lot of bans in the future if immaturity is the criterion. Tons of comedy, tons of media in general, children...

Everything should be family-friendly, so that we are safe and happy and it can lower down suicide rates.

This is so disturbingly petty bourgeois that it's not even funny.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Once again to all the authoritarians why can you not leave people alone who are not hurting others.

I am begging libertarians to understand how society works and that an individuals choices impacts more people than just themselves.

[Delvian States]

Once again to all the authoritarians why can you not leave people alone who are not hurting others.

I am begging libertarians to understand how society works and that an individuals choices impacts more people than just themselves.

That varying, indirect, limited impact doesn't justify trying to ban everything of which you disapprove. There are many ways to try to limit or mitigate any alleged harm to society without legislating against people's personal lives.

[Fahran]

Once again to all the authoritarians why can you not leave people alone who are not hurting others. Like what psychological defect is making you feel that you need to regulate other peoples up to using violence of the state to subjugate them .

Everyone has a policy issue where they don't mind a little oppression on folks who aren't them.

Do you really think i would be a better citizen after your jack boots beat my teeth in with a billy club and throw me in a cell for 3 years cause i had a copy of hustler?

Well, no, that's horrific. I gave my own perspective earlier. I'm critical of the industry as a whole because it's more abusive than many others and perpetuates a lot of problematic social issues. I want regulation to ensure that pornographers adhere to certain bare-minimum principles, even as they continue to produce their often problematic smut. I think parents should monitor their kids and ensure that they develop healthy habits. I do not think coomers should be curb-stomped by the popo or tossed in prison - unless they're looking at things that we shall not mention. In which case, chemically castrate them after a fair trial.

No thats how you get a 5,000 lbs anfo bomb shipped to the morality polices hq .

I think you might need to take a walk and cool down a bit. And I don't say that to be ugly, but your posts are very, very aggressive right now.

Like do you really think you could do that to a country of 340 million and effectively use the police? Like come on now the population will resist up to the point of violence . How many dead folk would it take for you to admit your moral crusade is as absurd as it is impotent?

I don't think most people would resist having porn taken away with firearms. And, as I mentioned before, hitting a few large corporations would dramatically decrease the availability of available pornographic materials.

[BoblyJoe]

No because it doesn't do enough damage to warrant a ban IMO and it's practically unenforceable in the United States

[Washington Resistance Army]

I am begging libertarians to understand how society works and that an individuals choices impacts more people than just themselves.

That varying, indirect, limited impact doesn't justify trying to ban everything of which you disapprove. There are many ways to try to limit or mitigate any alleged harm to society without legislating against people's personal lives.

Sure, and I've said earlier in the thread that banning porn would ultimately do more harm than good. But this rampant individualism we see everywhere has very clearly failed, it does not build a healthy or stable society.

[Fahran]

This is so disturbingly petty bourgeois that it's not even funny.

This implies that an industry centered on the commodification of bodies and sexuality isn't the pinnacle of bourgeois.

[Delvian States]

This is so disturbingly petty bourgeois that it's not even funny.

This implies that an industry centered on the commodification of bodies and sexuality isn't the pinnacle of bourgeois.

It might be, but so is the morality of disgust surrounding it.

[Delvian States]

That varying, indirect, limited impact doesn't justify trying to ban everything of which you disapprove. There are many ways to try to limit or mitigate any alleged harm to society without legislating against people's personal lives.

Sure, and I've said earlier in the thread that banning porn would ultimately do more harm than good. But this rampant individualism we see everywhere has very clearly failed, it does not build a healthy or stable society.

There are limits to even individualism, but there have to be limits to collectivism, too.

[Techocracy101010]

Once again to all the authoritarians why can you not leave people alone who are not hurting others.

I am begging libertarians to understand how society works and that an individuals choices impacts more people than just themselves.

okay your shitty society its taking away something i enjoy for no real reason porn has done nothing to me i watch it about once a month. You only have fraudulent studies cooked up by pseudo scientific christian researchers with shoddy methodology . You are threatening me with jail for looking at tiddy and ignore the first amendment which covers pornographic material . All so you can chant about superiority. If you had power why should i not hate you with every ounce of my being for enforcing flagrantly stupid rules? Why should i not violently resist you have proven yourself to be tyrannical and beyond reason like why can you not just mind your own life ?

[Fahran]

It might be, but so is the morality of disgust surrounding it.

I should think that some portion of the Christian moral disgust comes in response to the excesses of liberalism, the ideology of the bourgeoisie, as well as the numerous Marxist and feminist critiques of that ideology.

[Techocracy101010]

Once again to all the authoritarians why can you not leave people alone who are not hurting others. Like what psychological defect is making you feel that you need to regulate other peoples up to using violence of the state to subjugate them .

Everyone has a policy issue where they don't mind a little oppression on folks who aren't them.

Do you really think i would be a better citizen after your jack boots beat my teeth in with a billy club and throw me in a cell for 3 years cause i had a copy of hustler?

Well, no, that's horrific. I gave my own perspective earlier. I'm critical of the industry as a whole because it's more abusive than many others and perpetuates a lot of problematic social issues. I want regulation to ensure that pornographers adhere to certain bare-minimum principles, even as they continue to produce their often problematic smut. I think parents should monitor their kids and ensure that they develop healthy habits. I do not think coomers should be curb-stomped by the popo or tossed in prison - unless they're looking at things that we shall not mention. In which case, chemically castrate them after a fair trial.

No thats how you get a 5,000 lbs anfo bomb shipped to the morality polices hq .

I think you might need to take a walk and cool down a bit. And I don't say that to be ugly, but your posts are very, very aggressive right now.

Like do you really think you could do that to a country of 340 million and effectively use the police? Like come on now the population will resist up to the point of violence . How many dead folk would it take for you to admit your moral crusade is as absurd as it is impotent?

I don't think most people would resist having porn taken away with firearms. And, as I mentioned before, hitting a few large corporations would dramatically decrease the availability of available pornographic materials.

Quite frankly i just find moral busy bodies to be the single most useless and annoying thing in existence and that they are a cancer on the human species . I think they need to learn let sleeping dogs lie and mind yo own business. And yes i tots would advocate violent rebellion against a government that was arresting folks for porn cause lets be honest it will just be another war on drugs where us minorities get hit with more militarized violence . If im going to be brutalized by the state id prefer their planted evidence to be crack cocaine instead of hustler.

[Delvian States]

I am begging libertarians to understand how society works and that an individuals choices impacts more people than just themselves.

okay your shitty society its taking away something i enjoy for no real reason porn has done nothing to me i watch it about once a month. You only have fraudulent studies cooked up by pseudo scientific christian researchers with shoddy methodology . You are threatening me with jail for looking at tiddy and ignore the first amendment which covers pornographic material . All so you can chant about superiority. If you had power why should i not hate you with every ounce of my being for enforcing flagrantly stupid rules? Why should i not violently resist you have proven yourself to be tyrannical and beyond reason like why can you not just mind your own life ?

Regardless of how reliable the studies are, that is ultimately irrelevant. There are trade-offs in any society and there are superior or inferior tools. Government is generally an inferior tool when it comes to moral questions of personal freedom and conscience. It's a bludgeon where a scalpel is called for instead. But there are trade-offs. The trade-off for more freedom is sometimes excesses, such as more exploitation, more objectification (still not convinced that this is necessarily a bad thing here), and more easily accessed addictive goods and services. The question is whether a society is willing to make certain trade-offs. I lean heavily on the side of more freedom, especially believing as I do that government is an inferior tool in terms of consensual activities. This doesn't mean that I have to dismiss out of hand any negative trade-offs or consequences.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

The characterization of black men as animalistic, sexually aggressive/threatening (especially to white women), and less than human is fairly old, even predating the establishment of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade. We see the trope of racial cuckoldry already well-developed in Shakespeare's Othello and, with even more vulgarity, Titus Andronicus.

"Cuckoldry" is distinct from "aggression." Didn't Tamora have sex with Aaron the Moor willingly? Isn't that a more popular stereotype than that of black men as outright forcing themselves on women? We know Mel Gibson insinuating the latter wasn't received quite so positively. (Incidentally, though, it was still protected under freedom of speech.)

That said, you're misunderstanding what my intention here is and perhaps how we should begin to define patriarchy and white supremacy. Indeed, I'm not attempting to allocate blame solely to men

So how much of it belongs to women then?

or else I would not have mentioned Wallada, nor are men the sole participants in the perpetuation of patriarchy, though, in the context of porn, they do wield disproportionate power as producers, directors, and consumers

A. "Producers" and "directors" don't count for anything, since they're only catering to consumer demand. Only in their capacity as consumers does it count.

B. How do you prove women aren't comparably into porn? It's not like porn sites require you to place your genitals on the phone to gain access. If we're talking self-reporting surveys there, women can no more prove they're not comparably into porn than men can prove they prefer confident plus size women over insecure supermodels (something I believe men on anyway) or that they have the willpower to stay faithful to their wives even in the presence of homewreckers (something I'm not as sure I should believe them on).

Porn catered to men's longing for buxom women and women's apparent longing for guys with big dicks. If the latter wasn't a fair trade for the former, perhaps women shouldn't have spouted rhetoric on this matter that would have given a reasonable person the impression that's what they were looking for.

The point isn't which gender we blame for such occurrences, but, rather, an admission that said occurrences exist and note that porn has internalized and perpetuated nasty stereotypes - which it plainly has.

Stereotypes that have been perpetuated far more unmistakably by other media, and are covered under freedom of speech in each.

You have no more right to stack the deck against stereotypes than to stack the deck in their favour.

The act of degrading someone to the status of a mere object.

Nothing about porn does this. We can acknowledge a woman as more than an object and still use porn as an expression of our fantasies involving them. Just as a woman can acknowledge a man as more than an object and still consider her preference for circumcised guys a factor, but not the only factor, in whether she condones infant circumcision. If anything, porn often portrays women as active participants in sex, as opposed to society's other conversations around sex which make women out to be so desired by men that she could just sit back and relax and the guy would still give it his all trying to pleasure her.

I don't think sex-negative radfems are champions of sugar babies.

Doesn't matter. The voting public has allowed sugar daddies to be completely unprosecutable, yet put johns in prison where they're getting raped by Bubba and slammed head-first against the wall by correctional officers until they bleed all over the floor, with no one wanting to hire them for anything when they get out. This is not just a difference of degree. This is a difference of kind.

Also, I'm not referring to feminism in particular; frankly I doubt feminism is definable; I'm referring to the voting public as a whole.

[Fahran]

okay your shitty society its taking away something i enjoy for no real reason porn has done nothing to me i watch it about once a month. You only have fraudulent studies cooked up by pseudo scientific christian researchers with shoddy methodology .

Hold your horses. WRA does not support banning porn. Nor does most of our society. A couple people in this thread ostensibly do and I played devil's advocate earlier by laying out a radical feminist perspective on the subject. Realistically, nobody is trying to take away your porn. They're more likely to take away your guns. What recent measures have proposed is regulation - which is desperately needed.

You are threatening me with jail for looking at tiddy and ignore the first amendment which covers pornographic material . All so you can chant about superiority.

No one is suggesting that we put you in prison. I don't think even advocates of bans have laid out an actual plan on enforcement. I simply pointed out that it'd be easy to suppress a lot of content by simply taking down a handful of corporations - something I don't advocate doing.

If you had power why should i not hate you with every ounce of my being for enforcing flagrantly stupid rules? Why should i not violently resist you have proven yourself to be tyrannical and beyond reason like why can you not just mind your own life ?

Hating someone over porn is a little extreme.

[Name 0]

Everything should be family-friendly, so that we are safe and happy and it can lower down suicide rates.

This is so disturbingly petty bourgeois that it's not even funny.

You dirty or smth?

[Techocracy101010]

okay your shitty society its taking away something i enjoy for no real reason porn has done nothing to me i watch it about once a month. You only have fraudulent studies cooked up by pseudo scientific christian researchers with shoddy methodology .

Hold your horses. WRA does not support banning porn. Nor does most of our society. A couple people in this thread ostensibly do and I played devil's advocate earlier by laying out a radical feminist perspective on the subject. Realistically, nobody is trying to take away your porn. They're more likely to take away your guns. What recent measures have proposed is regulation - which is desperately needed.

You are threatening me with jail for looking at tiddy and ignore the first amendment which covers pornographic material . All so you can chant about superiority.

No one is suggesting that we put you in prison. I don't think even advocates of bans have laid out an actual plan on enforcement. I simply pointed out that it'd be easy to suppress a lot of content by simply taking down a handful of corporations - something I don't advocate doing.

If you had power why should i not hate you with every ounce of my being for enforcing flagrantly stupid rules? Why should i not violently resist you have proven yourself to be tyrannical and beyond reason like why can you not just mind your own life ?

Hating someone over porn is a little extreme.

The point is i just hate authoritarians

[Utquiagvik]

How can you seriously contemplate being for bestiality?!

I said that I'm on the fence. It's a morally grey area. The only question for me is....are they being actually harmed? That's the dilemma.

Doesn’t matter if it’s hurting them or not, bestiality is a crime.

[Munchkinstan]

Consensual porn? No problem.
Child porn, revenge porn, that which is blatantly illegal? Sure. Ban those.

[Fahran]

Quite frankly i just find moral busy bodies to be the single most useless and annoying thing in existence and that they are a cancer on the human species . I think they need to learn let sleeping dogs lie and mind yo own business. And yes i tots would advocate violent rebellion against a government that was arresting folks for porn cause lets be honest it will just be another war on drugs where us minorities get hit with more militarized violence . If im going to be brutalized by the state id prefer their planted evidence to be crack cocaine instead of hustler.

If the war on porn was prosecuted in the same way as the war on drugs, I suspect the weed man will soon become the titty man as well, which as some amusing implications if nothing else. I don't think we'll see anything approaching a porn ban any time soon.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Bonobos have group orgies all the time.

Not that I'm agreeing with them, but we're not bonobos.

Genetically speaking, we're 98.7% bonobos.

And that will have to do. Psychology and sociology don't exactly strike me as fields with incentive to tell it like it is when you consider how beholden they are to a public that flies off the handle when you note that respondents cannot be proven honest.

[Kerwa]

That varying, indirect, limited impact doesn't justify trying to ban everything of which you disapprove. There are many ways to try to limit or mitigate any alleged harm to society without legislating against people's personal lives.

Sure, and I've said earlier in the thread that banning porn would ultimately do more harm than good. But this rampant individualism we see everywhere has very clearly failed, it does not build a healthy or stable society.

Societies fail because the ruling class fails. This is pretty well documented. Whether the ordinary person has a preference for individualism or not plays very little into it.

Public toilets are beyond most of the US, libertarians aren’t really a problem.

[Delvian States]

This is so disturbingly petty bourgeois that it's not even funny.

You dirty or smth?

? Not sure what you mean. I simply tend to be dismissive of petty bourgeois notions of morality, at least when it comes to trying to censor, regulate, and ban anything that doesn't appeal to them. Then again, to be fair, the radical left proletarians and far-right aristocratic types can be guilty of that, too. Just look at the British Tories of late.