The link between the religulous anti-porn factions

[hifiguy]

that is to say the religulous moralists and the extreme feminists. Courtesy of Andrew Sullivan;l

It started here:

I wondered how long it would be before many leading theocons realized that their view of politics was remarkably similar to that of many conservative Muslims. Now theocon-in-chief, Robbie George, is allying with a Muslim intellectual in a crusade for banning porn on hotel TV. In an open letter to hotel owners, this campaign against freedom is framed as a battle as important as, yes, civil rights . . .

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/07/civil-rights-and-hotel-porn.html

Continued here, which proves that the prudish authoritarians of left and the theocratic right are absolutely united on this issue:

Pornography is degrading, dehumanizing, and corrupting. It undermines self-respect and respect for others. It reduces persons—creatures bearing profound, inherent, and equal dignity—to the status of objects. It robs a central aspect of our humanity—our sexuality—of its dignity and beauty. It ensnares some in addiction. It deprives others of their sense of self-worth. It teaches our young people to settle for the cheap satisfactions of lust, rather than to do the hard, yet ultimately liberating and fulfilling, work of love.

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2012/07/10/pornography-and-civil-rights/

And Sully gets the last, decisive word:

Human trafficking is a different subject, however tangentially related it might be to some pornography. Ending all hotel porn because of it would be like banning people from owning pets because of puppy mills. But our basic difference is in my belief in the freedom of people to watch what they want to watch and to perform in what they wish to perform. That includes porn.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/07/civil-rights-and-hotel-porn-ctd-1.html
(added emphasis is mine)

[loli phabay]

1. i have a keen interest in porn as i feel its the slippery slope

the same people who want to ban all what they consider porn would probuably move on to burning individuals after they burn the last copy of penthouse or hot babes, though i dont see the same hostility to gay porn as there is to straight porn. Also not sure what they hope to achieve, people have looked at others and lusted and objectified them since the begininng of time.

[caseymoz]

4. And you know, it won't end.

I saw a documentary late at night on the history of censorship in the movies. When censorship came to be voluntarily enforced on Hollywood in the early 1930s, after they banned nudity, the censors began to take out things that were even mild. One common thing that they cut out of films, oddly enough, were feet.

Once you censor the explicit stuff, the innocent stuff becomes more enticing to people. I mean, if you ban things like intercourse, suddenly scenes of kisses become masturbatory material. Or, as it was in Hollywood in the 30s and 40s, smoking becomes a substitute. Thus, replacing STI's, most of which are curable, with heart disease and lung cancer.

It's like the kid who couldn't get Playboy and so wacked off to National Geographic, or even Time Magazine.

It might make a real difference. There's a reason why rapes and sexual assaults have dropped as porn has become more ubiquitous. (Which by the way, does drain the urgency out of banning pornography, along with making opponents look rather foolish on their claims.) You'd much rather have people who don't feel teased at the mere sight of ankles or adorned earlobes. It's much better if sexual arousal is associated with something overt rather than something subtle that can be triggered by accident. I'm not talking about "mixed signals" I'm talking about frustration building.

[4th law of robotics]

2. They cite the civil rights movement as part of an overall campaign to take away rights

brilliant!

Pornography is degrading, dehumanizing, and corrupting. It undermines self-respect and respect for others. It reduces persons—creatures bearing profound, inherent, and equal dignity—to the status of objects. It robs a central aspect of our humanity—our sexuality—of its dignity and beauty. It ensnares some in addiction. It deprives others of their sense of self-worth. It teaches our young people to settle for the cheap satisfactions of lust, rather than to do the hard, yet ultimately liberating and fulfilling, work of love.

Almost word for word from a rad-fem site.

Remarkable how they overlap on some issues. Too many freedoms are frightening for people of a certain mentality.

[loli phabay]

3. not everyone wants love, some people just want to have fun

this seems to say that only sex with love is okay everything else is BAD. You can pretty much respect someone and still want to jump them and guess what in the morning after you have had a great time you can still have self respect. I guess for some they are scared that people are having more fun than them or doing something they dont agree with so they need to interfere.

[Warren DeMontague]

6. There's an HL Mencken quote for that. nt

[caseymoz]

5. Problem is, pornography is a broad category.

It doesn't seem like it. I mean it's material made specifically to incite or aid in masturbation. Problem is, that covers a wide variety of different material.
Opponents make it sound like it's all the same. That it all is degrading, dehumanizing . . . and so on.

And they're a little behind the curve. For one thing, it looks like the production side is shutting down. The internet has so saturated the world with free porn, that there isn't a business model that makes it lucrative anymore. Now, maybe they'll develop one.

One trend that has come out, and that is women getting a webcam and putting on their own shows. No production company, no distributor, no men involved except as customers. She can be her own bouncer and ban them from her shows if they're rude. With today's technology, how are they proposing to ban that?

[hifiguy]

7. Through redefinition of words, as usual.

The same way they have redefined "misogyny" as "disagreement with HoF kooks." You DO know that any hetero female that seeks out and enjoys male attention is a brainwashed victim of and slave to the penis-centric patriarchy, don't you? ETA:

[loli phabay]

8. do you have a link i looked up hof's statements but mostly i got baywatch knightrider

And a drunken thing i had no idea he was getting political. Ps still love his i cant fight this feeling video its a masterpiece.

[loli phabay]

15. was going to delete this but thought my stupidity should stand for all to see

Just ealised that hof is an acronym for history of feminism group. Dont know why i thought it was david hasselboff. Talk about feeling a major wanker.

[4th law of robotics]

10. No such thing as consent within the Patriarchy!

All women are helpless victims of the mighty Penis!

Even those that seem to enthusiastically consent are in fact being raped by the Man because women aren't intelligent enough to see through the brainwashing.

Or something like that.

[4th law of robotics]

9. It really doesn't matter

the company could be entirely woman owned, doing only things this one particular woman agrees to and they'll still claim it's part of the patriarchy since women can't really consent to such things due to the imbalance in power and blah blah blah.

Coming up for justifications as to why women are the victim in every scenario is their forte'.

Given the motivation and enough time and they'll churn out reams of essays as to why prostate cancer primarily harms women.

[hifiguy]

11. Lordy lu, you are so right.

Given the motivation and enough time and they'll churn out reams of essays as to why prostate cancer primarily harms women.

The whole issue was resolved by the French, as is so often the case : Vive la difference!!

[Warren DeMontague]

12. And people constantly raise this issue to anti porn crusaders, only to be told it's a "distraction"

And the imple question remains, "is there ANY graphic depiction of a man and woman having sex that you wouldnt object to/seek to censor?"

And the answer, after lots of hemming and hawing, is invariably "no" followed by endless rationlizations full of authoritative sounding blibber blabber like "patriarchy" and "the male gaze disrupts the flow of consciousness".

The imple truth is, NO, "acceptable porn" is impossible because to your 2nd wave Drowrkin-eucated cultist, the very act of PIV sex is the problem itself, as inherently oppressive an act as lynching, which is why they love to use that analogy in anti-1st Amendment screeds.

[Warren DeMontague]

13. Jesus, and Gail Dines

http://mindsplinter.org/2011/05/gail-dines-and-pornography/

[hifiguy]

14. Great link which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt

the case that you and I have been making here for a long while.