There is nothing wrong with Porn & Prostitution

[Michigander_Life]

Both industries should be completely legal, regulated and taxed. It is disheartening to see so many people try to force their morality on consenting adults. There are even self-proclaimed feminists trying limit what women choose to do with their own bodies. It's simply insane. Luckily most of the folks on this website expressing such draconian, anti-women views are quickly shouted down.

[Scuba]

1. No one on this site has ever been "quickly shouted down".

[daleanime]

17. And no one ever should be.

[cui bono]

166. The OP maybe should be.

Yesterday s/he was advocating torture as long as Obama ordered it.

Now advocating porn in a very odd manner.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

168. Five Strikes within ninety days will definitely mufflle the tone, though.

[cui bono]

170. This one would do better with a pizza.

Yesterday they were advocating torture as long as Obama ordered it. Said they "trust Obama to torture responsibly". Never did answer me when I asked what responsible torture is.

I couldn't decide if it was performance art or pure idiocy.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

172. did I hear Pizza?

Have a slice just warming for the dude ...

I'm pretty tired of any feminist critique of porn, in order for it to be seen as valid, the author is expected to like pornography and heartily endorse it in a disclaimer. The happy, fun, consent-filled, queer and woman-friendly stuff we see on the internet is a rarity compared to the hateful (not a strong enough word) disgusting and degrading reality that is the whole picture. Say you have a pizza, and 14 out of 16 slices are covered in broken glass and dog shit, but two slices are cheesy and perfectly delicious. If I'm reviewing it, should I have to make some statement about how great those pieces fit for human consumption were? Should I support Pope Benedicto's Dog Shit N Broken Glass Pizza Parlour because they manage to make two edible slices of pizza per pie? It not only distorts the reality of the situation, but also seriously diminishes the pain and suffering of the vast majority of human beings who've actually been through it (eaten pizza/been involved in the pornography industry.)

[cui bono]

175. They may enjoy those 14 slices.

They were advocating torture yesterday.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

176. Special made just for him

and Yes, I saw the thread yesterday as I scrolled right on past it to something more to my taste

[hifiguy]

70. Not true.

In Meta it happened multiple times every day. Which is why Meta went bye-bye.

[redqueen]

2. Just going to post this here.

Love,
An anti-objectification, anti-porn, anti-prostitution feminist.

[Warren DeMontague]

14. Chris Hedges the plagiarist.

[opiate69]

19. And... surprise surprise...

Master of Divinity.

Shocking, I know.

[Warren DeMontague]

22. The bottom line is, porn isn't going anywhere.

Anyone who honestly believes otherwise is strenuously deluded.

The worst thing to happen to the porn industry wasn't Andrea Dworkin, it was the internet.

[liberalhistorian]

146. Ah, yes, Ms. Dworkin

the man-bashing sex-hater, who considered ALL sex to be "rape" that "occupies women with a foreign body" no matter how much the woman may seem to enjoy or want it. As a woman who greatly enjoys sex with my wonderful hubby, I deeply resent that and call it the complete and utter fucking bullshit that it is.

[cui bono]

164. That's been debunked at length on DU alone. n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

178. No, the debunking has been debunked.

Whether or not she said that exact sentence, the gist of her works- as expressed by books like "our blood" and "intercourse"- is pretty clear.

"Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman"

"For men I suspect that this transformation begins in the place they most dread -- that is, in a limp penis. I think that men will have to give up their precious erections and begin to make love as women do together."

She had nothing resembling a mainstream attitude towards human sexuality, and specifically the act of penetrative sex, which she considered possibly "immune to reform".

And even her erstwhile allies felt she had serious mental issues and a break with reality by the time she died.

[cui bono]

183. From what I read it has been debunked. As you say, she may not have said those exact words.

The gist of her works would then be subject to interpretation. Tbh, I never heard of her before the arguments on DU brought her up, but from what I read on here and the links I followed she is being either misrepresented/misinterpreted or being paraded as the face of feminism in an attempt to smear feminism as a whole because she is extreme.

Surely we can have a discussion of feminism without constantly trotting out someone like that, who doesn't represent the whole of feminism but just one view on it. I honestly haven't seen anyone use her as their source in defense of feminism on here.

[Warren DeMontague]

186. She doesn't represent anything but the fringe of the fringe.

And, she formed alliances of convenience with people like Ed Meese to boot.

Which is why I'm constantly befuddled by the seemingly reflexive need for some people to defend her.

I don't think she represents Feminism, not even close: none of the Feminists I know IRL think she represents Feminism, but then most of the Feminists I know IRL don't think trying to stop consenting adults watching other consenting adults fuck on film is a particularly legitimate or worthwhile pursuit, much less a front burner goal of "Feminism".

Unlike Dworkin, who basically made it a top priority.

[cui bono]

192. The point as I see it is to enlighten people to the nature of most porn and how it can skew one's

attitude toward and perception of sex and women, not to stop people enjoying watching other people fuck. It's the type of fucking that is in question and the lessons it teaches people about gender roles and treatment. Most porn is about degrading women. The "money shot" is usually a facial. There's a good post about facials in this thread. That's not respecting a woman. Look at all the crude comments you see on the internet nowadays. Hell back when I was in college a I was visiting a friend and his roommate got home and was so angry and he said "man I need to fuck right now", so because he's angry he thinks a woman should take him ramming into her. Where does a young man get that idea? It's all tied together.

Here's a great video for you, this guy gives a great talk about why he changed his mind about porn:

Oh, and btw... you were the one who brought up Dworkin? Why is that? If you agree she is the fringe of the fringe why bring her into the conversation?

Okay, now please enjoy your video, there will be no further interruptions:

[Warren DeMontague]

193. I originally mentioned Dworkin only in the context of her ineffectual battle vs. the porn industry

which is the topic of the thread, and how free content on the internet has done more damage to their profits than she ever could.

She's only relevant because she made battling porn her life's work, or a prime focus of it. It doesn't mean she wasn't extreme.

And seeing some repeatedly-posted guy go "holy shit porn is horrible" isn't going to change my opinion, sorry. "most porn" isn't anything- "porn" encompasses a whole lot of stuff. People like what they like. The people who like the stuff you think is horrible, aren't going to be swayed by your argument. The people who don't like what you what think is horrible, are not going to be swayed by your argument that the stuff they like has anything to do with the stuff you think is horrible.

What you have is tired old anecdotal evidence of people cherry-picking examples of whatever it is they're railing against (or simply coming from bizarro reality, like the documentarian who believes porn is oppressive when it contains blowjobs), and then trying to make some sort of sweeping generalizations from them. I'm a grown up, and I make my own decisions about entertainment. Beyond that it's inanely patronizing to assume that strangers you meet on the internet simply haven't thought about these grand pronouncements and generalizations you're making about something they may very well be more familiar with, than you are.

There is always the possibility- remote, sure- that you're simply WRONG.

But I'll do you a favor; I won't try to tell you - or 're-educate' you- on what to watch, read, or think about. Aren't I nice?

[cui bono]

196. So you really don't think that most porn is about a woman being objectified

and that facials aren't a huge part of it all? Most porn isn't about an equal sexual experience. Here, read this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5353995

You actually are missing the entire point of it all. I think it's on purpose though, so I'll leave it at that. You don't want to get that porn influences men's attitude's towards women and I can't make you get it since you're not even willing to listen. You won't even take responsibility for having brought up Dworkin's name when there was no reason to do so what so ever. I can think of a reason one might do that. And yet you think others are "picking out the worst examples of whatever it is they're railing against". Project much?

And by the way, I'm not trying to make your decisions for you. I'm trying to get you to see how it can affect society and men's attitudes towards women. From your tone and your defensive "I'm a big boy" attitude one might get the idea that you're one of the guys who thinks feminism is about castrating men and controlling them.

[Warren DeMontague]

197. The facial person also thinks "men ejaculating in womens mouths" indicates oppression.

And no, I don't think mens' sexuality is being jim-hammied by the nasty porn brain erotoxin fritwardles. I don't believe that "most porn" is anything, any more than I believe that "most music" is anything, except something most people enjoy with their ears.

"Feminism" is a label. There are plenty of Feminists who don't think fighting against porn is, or should be, a focus of the movement.

"I'm trying to get you to see-" translation: you are adopting a patronizing attitude with me that somehow I require further education on something I don't. That's offensive, as offensive as me looking through your bookshelf and trying to lecture you about the authors you like.

I'm trying to get you to see that.

[cui bono]

199. So you didn't bother to read that post at the link then.

You're responding about something I did not point you to or bring up.

As to your being offended by a discussion about society, your analogy about looking through my bookshelf is way off. First of all, when did I look through your videos? And the fact that you take a discussion as a lecture is telling. Again, one might perceive that as a man who hates being told anything by a woman, a man who feels that a woman who is simply speaking her mind on an internet message board is somehow lecturing him and trying to dictate what he should be watching. You are honestly coming off that way, like you think I want to come take your toys away, or even your manhood. If you want to start a thread discussing authors and books and their effect on society you are more than welcome to do so. I encourage it. Please do.

I'm discussing a societal issue. I'm not lecturing or dictating to you what you can and cannot do or watch. I can however, speak my mind about the influences that certain things have on society, especially when it has to do with misogyny. It's something that actually affects my life, being a woman and all.

[Warren DeMontague]

200. Yes, I did. Again, you seem to think that if I'm just exposed to enough supposedly self-evident

wisdom, I'll change my mind. Except, the basic premises of the generalizations are false. I already don't like misogynist porn, any more than I like hair metal. But all porn or "most porn" is not misogynist, in my opinion, just like porn containing blowjobs is not inherently misogynist.

I'm not being defensive, I'm responding to you, which is what you're doing to me. You apparently don't like being challenged on your right to attempt to 're-educate' people.

If you really want to understand porn, since it's so important to you, try watching some. Maybe by looking for it on your own instead of following links from anti-porn bloggers. Just remember that, like with many things, what you find is highly dependent upon what you look for.

Or don't, make up your own mind.

The only author I've tried to get DU members to read is Korzybski, whose ideas in general semantics are sorely needed by people who get way too attached to their categories and labels, which allows them to make blanket statements like "most porn is" "Feminists are" "Progressives are" etc. etc.

[cui bono]

202. Well you mentioned something from a different post, so it didn't seem that you read what I linked to

and that you assumed because I mentioned facials I was talking about that other post that you referenced.

You are being defensive. You are worried I'm telling you what to watch, you made a false analogy that inferred that I'm rifling through your videos and telling you what to watch, you made a point of stating that you are a grown up who can decide for himself. You are making very personal arguments rather than simply discussing the merits or ill effects of most porn.

I'm glad to hear you don't like misogynist porn. I never said porn containing blow jobs was misogynistic. You are arguing things I never said. Except that I did say most porn is misogynistic and I believe that to be true.

You make a lot of assumptions as well. Rather than ask if I've ever watched any porn you just assume I haven't. You think that only people who have never watched porn think it is generally degrading to women? Or you think that all people who think it's degrading to women haven't watched it?

One last thing and then I have to go to bed. As a man, do you find it odd that you keep arguing against what so many women (and men) find degrading? Who are you to tell a woman that it's not degrading? Should white people tell blacks what is and isn't to be perceived as racist? And you also keep defining feminism. Should whites go argue with blacks and define racism to them? Should they go and name drop the most extreme person that most people don't agree with, with whatever motive they might have for doing so?

Why don't you allow for the fact that many women (and men) feel it is degrading to women and trust that women would know if it is or isn't? Why don't you try to be sensitive to that fact? The fact that you insist on arguing against the fact that women feel it is degrading shows that you disregard women and don't value their opinions and feelings. You are dismissing it away just because you don't want to believe it. The real issue is that most women do find it degrading and yet you want to convince them that it isn't. If you were at all concerned about women's issues you would try to understand why they think that. You appear to be more concerned that some woman is trying to take something away from you. It's not about a gender war, it's about understanding, respect and empathy, or at least sympathy.

I try to understand what it must be like to grow up black or gay in this country all the time. It's not up to me to define what is and isn't racist or homophobic, it's up to me to understand why blacks or gays feel something is racist or homophobic. I certainly don't go around trying to define it for them and tell them they are wrong to feel oppressed. If they tell me something is offensive to them or degrading to them or oppressive to them I try to understand why they feel that way, I don't go telling them they are wrong.

And that is the real crux of the situation here.

Good night.

[Warren DeMontague]

207. Eh, please don't tell me what I am or am not worried about.

I'm worried about Ebola getting a foothold in Lagos, I'm not worried that any erstwhile porn banners on DU -if they actually exist- are ever going to succeed in getting rid of smut. That's just not going to happen.

You brought up "facials", which is directly from the same documentarian referenced upthread who believes the fact that porn regularly shows "men ejaculating in womens mouths" indicates misogyny or degradation. I don't want to get into TMI territory, but most sexually active adults have had oral sex of various configurations, with all sorts of end results, and most of them don't consider the act "degrading". The whole thing about ... that whole thing is totally arbitrary IMHO, and really just seems to reflect the fact that a particular act or combination of acts horrified one particular researcher.

I'm not telling you what to think. You seem awfully concerned with what I think- whether it be telling me what I think, telling me what I should think about, telling me what it "appears" that I think, etc. Here's a hint... if you have to go to great lengths to imagine what it "appears" that I think, I think you're doing it wrong. Maybe deal with my actual words, instead of what you imagine is going on in my head?

"Most porn is..." that's part of the problem. These relatively pointless exercises are sort of like someone making some scholarly-sounding ominous assertion that "most music has accordions", and then proceeding to go out and list a whole bunch of examples of music with accordions. Now leaving aside the question of whether accordions are objectively bad or not, the fact remains that if someone doesn't like accordion music, the thing to do is avoid it, and if someone thinks there are too many accordions in music, well, one answer might be to make some music without accordions. Going on about how music=accordions, is ludicrous. Music is too broad a category, a genre, a means of expression, to make those sorts of generalizations. Not to mention, "music" can include everything from a symphony to someone banging two rocks together.

Yes, I'm a grown up. I've spent enough years on this planet that I'm going to make up my own mind about stuff, and that includes consenting adult entertainment. It appears that I'm supposed to cluck appreciatively when provided with "education" on these matters which I apparently just don't understand, but if I protest or mention the fact that my own counsel will I keep, thank you very much, I'm being defensive/afraid.

No, I don't find it "odd" that I support the right of consenting adults to make their own damn decisions, and that includes the right of them to take off their clothes off in front of a camera. I'm not going to apologize for that fact. Some people find "porn" (again, ill-defined and broadly generalizing) "degrading" (again, ill-defined) many people DO NOT. I'm not sure why I'm supposed to "listen" to one opinion and then immediately accept that it is the only valid one. There are lots of people who don't agree. I've read the assertions, again, of the people who make broad generalizations about "degrading acts in porn" and then proceed to categorize many normal sex acts- like blowjobs- as degrading.

Dworkin is relevant, here, because she was coming from a place where the penetrative sex act itself, was inherently degrading to women, particularly when graphically displayed. And like it or not, that strain of thinking still rings through a great deal of porn "critique". But if you ask people who subscribe to that approach what sorts of graphic depictions of the sex act they would NOT consider degrading, generally there is no answer- because the answer is "none". I don't agree with that assessment, and neither do many women AND men. I'm sympathetic and empathetic to people who don't like porn, but there's a relatively simple solution- Don't like porn? Great, don't watch it. Simple enough.

I also haven't "defined" Feminism, what I've pointed out are two things, a) it's a label, and b) there are many Feminists who self-apply that label who don't feel there is anything inherently wrong with porn.

No one has told you you can't feel any particular way about porn. However, the insisitence that everyone else has to feel the same way (and if anyone disagrees, they're 'oddly arguing' 'not listening' and 'not sympathetic') is pretty goofy, especially given that this is a discussion board. You have an opinion, I don't agree. You can post youtube videos or links to insightful posts, I still won't agree. You can claim I'm not being sympathetic, try to divine my deeper motives, imply that I'm worried someone's gonna take all the pictures of naked women off the intertubes, I still won't agree. Sorry.

...that is the real crux of the issue.

[cui bono]

229. And now you are being dismissive about the treatment of a gender

Last edited Sat Aug 9, 2014, 04:19 PM - Edit history (2)

that is half of this population because you are much more busy worrying about ebola, which I'm pretty sure you yourself can do nothing about, where as this is an issue you could actually help out with, should you choose to be empathetic rather than combative.

Regarding "facials". Do you think that documentary maker is the person who coined that phrase? The only one who uses it? Come on, at least admit that your referencing that other post was apropos of nothing. Otherwise you expose yourself as not attempting to or not wanting to have a genuine discussion. You seemingly brought that into it as a way to discount an entire argument even though it was not relevant to what I had said, just as you brought up an extremist such as Dworkan in an attempt to discount the entire argument that most porn is degrading to women. She is no more relevant in here than is Santa Claus because no one is arguing or defending her points. You brought her up out of thin air. Is it relevant to bring up Karl Marx in an attempt to argue against Obama's fiscal policies? No, not when it is done as if Marx's ideas are anything close to resembling Obama's. No one prior to your post bringing her up said anything about blow jobs themselves being degrading. No one said the act of sex alone is bad. No one. You brought her up in what can only be seen as an attempt to spoil the argument. There was no other reason to bring her up. None.

There's nothing wrong with you not being aware of how porn is degrading, but you aren't even trying to understand how it could be when women (and men) tell you that it is. You can argue and protest as much as you like that you resent someone (women) telling you how you are supposed to feel and think, which is not at all what is happening. The fact that you perceive it as such seems indicative that you probably have a deep fear of women having any voice at all. Because the rational response to anyone stating that they are uncomfortable with something and see it as degrading to an entire gender would be to actually think about it and look at why they feel that way. But you feel the need to proclaim that you are an adult - when no one has questioned that - and how you don't have to listen to anyone telling you what you can and cannot watch - no one has done that either. Then you try to make an analogy that infers that what I am doing is rifling through your personal video collection and lecturing you on them - again, never done. That's not even close to what anyone is doing. We're just discussing an issue, irrespective of what you may or may not have in your video library. You're the one who keeps telling us you like to watch porn and no one can tell you to stop.

Your arguments are way off the mark, most likely either because you are defensive or just completely disingenuous. But they are not intellectually coherent and seem to be coming from an emotional response against you having to have any kind of respectful dialog with a woman. Quite frankly, you are coming off like an insecure male attempting to prove his masculinity in ways that only show how threatened you are because otherwise you would look at the actual issue being discussed instead of bringing up unrelated authors and posts and complaining about some non-existent "orders" about what you are allowed to watch. No one is trying to take anything away from you. We are simply stating that most porn is degrading to women and that has an effect on how men view and treat women as a whole in society.

If you are in a relationship and your partner tells you something bothers them, do you just tell them that there is nothing to be bothered about, that they don't get to tell you how to behave? That you can do and say whatever you want? Or do you talk to them about why that bothers them and try to not bother them in the future? And even if you don't understand it, do you keep telling them their feelings are not valid? Because that's what you are doing here.

Again... I try to understand what it must be like to grow up black or gay in this country all the time. It's not up to me to define what is and isn't racist or homophobic, it's up to me to understand why blacks or gays feel something is racist or homophobic. I certainly don't go around trying to define it for them and tell them they are wrong to feel oppressed. If they tell me something is offensive to them or degrading to them or oppressive to them I try to understand why they feel that way, I don't go telling them they are wrong.

Again again...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5353995

Compassion and understanding is what it's all about.

[Warren DeMontague]

239. Just because someone says "this bothers me", doesn't mean they're automatically entitled to be taken

seriously.

A lot of people are "bothered" by consensual gay relationships. They're not automatically entitled to be taken seriously just because the behavior of others bugs them. You keep trying to compare porn to racism or homophobia, again, the basic underlying premise there is faulty- at least, I think it is. Actually, I think it's far more rational to compare what you're doing, here, to the people who can't stay out of the consenting adult business of others.

And it goes back to Dworkin because she believed ALL penetrative sex, at least as it is generally practiced on Planet Earth, is inherently "degrading" to women. To ALL women, actually, not just the woman in the sex act. It requires that sort of assumption- erroneous, to say the least, in my mind- to arrive at a conclusion where sex graphically depicted similarly contains an inherent element of degradation to women.

In short, I don't believe sex is inherently degrading to anyone. If people do, that's their problem, not mine. Suggesting, as you have repeatedly, "you need to listen to the people who think depictions of sex are like racism and homophobia because depictions of sex are like racism and homophobia", is a tautology.

Do you believe that it is possible to depict sex graphically and have it not be degrading?

I do not think the documentary filmmaker coined the word "facials", but then I don't see what the existence of the term proves in terms of the inherent "degrading" nature of the act. And in the same sentence she listed "men orgasming on womens faces" and "men orgasming in womens mouths" as two of these common, horrific degrading components of, again, that bugaboo "most porn". What you don't seem to get is that not everyone - not every woman, not even every self-described Feminist- automatically believes those things are "degrading". And again, this is not an outlier in terms of the MacKinnon-isms and Dines-osity of your boilerplate anti-porn arguments; they crop up over and over, and yes, they've already been floated even numerous times on DU- among them are defining "most porn" as "violent or degrading" and then defining pretty common sex acts, from blowjobs (or "orgasming in a woman's mouth&quot to butt-slapping, as "violent or degrading". All sorts of spooky implications are floated about the endllessly programmable nature of the male sex-brain, and oh no what are we doing to these easily hijacked mens' heads with the porn programming turning them to mush?


I don't think oral sex is inherently degrading. I don't think someone "orgasming on someone else's face" is inherently degrading.

You're the one who keeps telling us you like to watch porn and no one can tell you to stop.

No, if you read what I wrote, you'd see that I said that I make my own decisions about consenting adult entertainment, period, as should you and all other thinking people with functional brains in their heads. And apparently that relatively straightforward sentiment alone constitutes a global planetary emergency, and is enough to warrant no end to cloth-rending, hair-tearing, wailing and gnashing of teeth. Oh well.

There's nothing wrong with you not being aware of how porn is degrading, but you aren't even trying to understand how it could be when women (and men) tell you that it is. You can argue and protest as much as you like that you resent someone (women) telling you how you are supposed to feel and think, which is not at all what is happening.

That's funny. First part- "your thinking is wrong" Second part- "you should listen when people try to correct you on your erroneous thinking" Third part- "no one is trying to tell you what to think".

The fact that you perceive it as such seems indicative that you probably have a deep fear of women having any voice at all.

The rest of your post, the other sort of inane ad hominem insults, and the rest... yeah, whatever. What were you saying about getting 'personal and emotional'?

[cui bono]

270. You've missed on all points.

Again you inject Dworkan as if she has anything to do with anything. She has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation other than your constant attempts to derail it by bringing in extremist examples to taint the opposition. You're showing that you are not concerned about actually exploring the issue or discussing it.

No one said there is anything inherently degrading about/with sex.

Of course you can depict sex graphically without it being degrading. This is probably why you are not understanding why people think most porn is degrading to women. You seem to think porn is normal sex. It's not.

And I see now that you don't think facials are degrading. Well then that's where we reach a definite impasse beyond what we already had.

Lastly, you are confusing listening to what people have to say and taking their feelings into consideration with being lectured to. My take away is that you just don't care that many people find most porn to be degrading to women. And you don't care why they feel that way either. So no point continuing.

[Warren DeMontague]

278. And you don't care that many people DON'T find porn degrading to women.

Or men, for that matter.

Difference being, I'm not trying to go off on some goofy psychoanalysis of your personality, make ridiculous offhand assertions about who you are and what motivates you, nor am I complaining about how you're not listening/empathetic/being considerate because you don't agree with the assessment of those people.

The baseline, here, is that you're dead set determined that there is one objective, "right" way to think about "most porn". I'm saying first off that "porn" is not a monolith, "most porn" is an imaginary categorization, and different people have different opinions and reactions to not just porn in general but the specific acts and actions in question- there is not an objective "one correct way" to think about them.

[cui bono]

283. I'm not causing any harm to anyone who doesn't find porn degrading.

However, those who don't find it degrading are causing harm to women, imo.

You did far worse than my speculating on your possible fear of women because of how you deal with this issue, you attempted to derail the discussion by bringing in extremist examples in an attempt to paint the opposition as crazy and invalidate that position - and after being called on it you doubled down and did it yet again. And rather than attempt to actually discuss the issue you kept trying to paint it as me and others telling you what you could and could not watch, which was never the case. And then you wrongly inferred that I was going through your videos and then lecturing you about what you were watching, by likening my posts to you looking through my books and lecturing me on what authors I was reading. Basically, you were doing everything you could to avoid an actual discussion. I made an observation on your behavior and how it came across. I could have not done that, I'm sorry if that offended you.

As to the your "not listening" part. Well, if you have a problem with that then all you have to do is to start listening. And that doesn't mean taking orders, it means just that, listening. Listening to the concerns of others. There's absolutely nothing wrong with doing that, there is everything right in doing that. Communication takes listening. It can't happen without it. Period. You can't possibly understand another's concerns without listening. Again I refer you to what I've said twice now that you never address:

I try to understand what it must be like to grow up black or gay in this country all the time. It's not up to me to define what is and isn't racist or homophobic, it's up to me to understand why blacks or gays feel something is racist or homophobic. I certainly don't go around trying to define it for them and tell them they are wrong to feel oppressed. If they tell me something is offensive to them or degrading to them or oppressive to them I try to understand why they feel that way, I don't go telling them they are wrong.

Oh, as to your "baseline". You are doing exactly what you accuse me of when you say porn is not degrading to women. And you're not even a woman, you are part of the gender in power, so why do you think you get to be the spokesman of what is or is not degrading to women? Hint, you don't. Just as I, as a white person, don't get to define what is and isn't racist. See excerpt above.

Your accusation is also wrong in that I specifically use the term "most porn" to distinguish from the porn that is not degrading to women. Therefore I cannot possibly be thinking of porn as a "monolith" so I don't know what you're talking about there but it is completely wrong and doesn't make any sense at all.

And most porn is of a certain type. You are the only one I see arguing that it's not. I've seen several male posters in this thread alone describing it as mistreating women. If you don't think facials are degrading then it just shows how far we have yet to go and proves my point as to how porn affects the male's view of women in society.

Bye now.

[Warren DeMontague]

284. Sure.

Apology accepted.

[hifiguy]

279. That takedown bordered on genius, sir

[nomorenomore08]

245. "...you probably have a deep fear of women having any voice at all."

I'm not unsympathetic to your views (see post #244) but this is really a leap from what Warren has actually said. Putting words in another person's mouth tends to undermine one's argument - and that's a shame, as you do have many valid points in this thread.

As I said above, I am bothered if not outright horrified by much of the porn that exists out there. But I'm not going to accuse a person of malicious intent just because they don't entirely agree with me.

[Warren DeMontague]

266. It'd be nice if we could have these threads without the goofy armchair psychoanalysis

or the ad hominem attacks that go with it, wouldn't it?

[nomorenomore08]

272. Yes, that would be a positive step, I agree. n/t

[cui bono]

285. But you're fine with bringing up extremists who no one has quoted or is championing

so as to invalidate the opposing side? If you posted to WDM about that I missed it. If you're going to jump in and play referee you should ref all involved. Not that it really matters except for the reaction you got from it shows it just egged him on. Anyway, I apologized for it even though I don't think it was really that wrong. At least I wasn't trying to derail the entire discussion with a strawman and false arguments as WDM did on several occasions.

[nomorenomore08]

288. I think his bringing up Dworkin was somewhat questionable, yes.

And frankly I think you were both putting words in each other's mouths. Not an uncommon thing on DU.

For the record, though, I don't think you particularly have anything to apologize for.

[cui bono]

268. I'm basing it off his words.

That's how he comes across to me. And that in no way is accusing him of malicious intent. It's an observation based on what he has said.

[nomorenomore08]

244. I dunno... While I do think "degrading" is in the eye of the beholder, I have to say

that a lot of (relatively mainstream) pornographic content disturbs me. It's not about "fucking on camera" - that in itself I take no issue with - but the frequently disrespectful, if not outright abusive and violent, treatment of the female performers. Everything from verbally insulting them to slapping them around. And frankly, I find it downright horrifying that an irredeemable scumbag like Max Hardcore has so many fans - even though I disagree with his being prosecuted for "obscenity," which is an outdated and frankly stupid legal concept.

So yeah, I'm not trying to lecture you or pile on or anything of that nature - I generally like and appreciate you as a poster, and I've said so more than once in the past. Just saying, it's a little more complicated than simply "porn good" or "porn bad." And while I generally regard Dworkin as a bit of a crackpot, her views didn't come from nowhere. If nothing else, you can't say that she didn't know sexual violence and abuse firsthand.

[Warren DeMontague]

267. I think Max Hardcore is an asshole and absolutely a misogynist, but I also think he peaked

in 1997 or so.

I don't think he's indicative of "most porn", which again, at this point is well beyond just whatever the "industry" puts out from Van Nuys or wherever, and has really expanded- as has so much else content-related with the internet- into a medium of expression more than a monolithic thing.

Again, if one wants to make the argument that "most music is accordions", one could make a big list of accordion music, but it still wouldn't prove that most music is accordion music. It just means that there is accordion music out there.

[nomorenomore08]

271. Fair enough. I realize the worst material isn't necessarily typical, though I would argue

that it's far too common even still.

[Warren DeMontague]

273. And there's a lot of shitty music out there.

But that doesn't mean all music is shit, or all music fans are to blame for The Nuge.

[nomorenomore08]

274. Absolutely not. I'm with you all the way there. n/t

[hifiguy]

233. Dworkin was seriously mentally ill from the get go.

and mistaken for a "philosopher" by some so-called legal theorists with an ax to grind. I read a bunch of her "work" and it bore about as much resemblance to the reality lived on Earth as The Flintstones does to anthropological history. She was as delusional as the average street-corner preacher.

[Warren DeMontague]

242. And no one ever wants to talk about her alliances of convenience with right-wingers.

However many on the Christian right recognized her as an ally, despite their differences.

[nomorenomore08]

247. I would say that, if anything, is the greatest strike against her.

Aligning with repressive forces in the name of liberation - which, needless to say, is all kinds of screwed up, even if you subscribe to the "any port in a storm" way of thinking. Case in point, when an anti-porn ordinance endorsed by Dworkin was passed in Canada, most of the materials seized by Customs were gay/lesbian oriented - hardly what the "progressive" backers of the law envisioned, I would think.

[hifiguy]

275. MacKinnon and her ilk didn't care

about that. Not one bit. They were and and are as prudish as Anthony Comstock. Any depictions of any sex were evil.

[nomorenomore08]

276. Something like the old adage about going so far left you wind up on the right?

[hifiguy]

277. Eeyup. Exactly.

There is a lot more of it on DU than you would expect.

[BainsBane]

92. And . . . under the bus

?1397833921

[Warren DeMontague]

99. Hardly.

That would only apply if I was ever a fan. Wasn't.

Never been impressed with his particular stripe of bloviation. Sorry.

[JaydenD]

65. Wise men these people.

I think they know having a cup of splooge on their faces for entertainment sake probably isn't all that great when you are the sploogie. Plus hurting orifaces and the humiliation of it all.

Thanks for those vids.

[redqueen]

84. You reminded me of this

When I asked male interview subjects what they would like to do in bed, “ejaculation on a woman’s face” was most often at the top of their lists. But when I asked them what the attraction of this act was and whether it meant anything, their initial response was puzzlement. They had never given it much thought. With time for reflection, however, most came up with answers very similar to those of the pornographers I interviewed: it is about controlling women, doing something disgusting to them. It’s like spitting or urinating on them. Thus something unsettling about gender relationships mediated by pornography is revealed: on-screen male domination is sugar-coated — portrayed as causing women ecstasy — which in turn arouses further desire on the part of the male viewers: the desire to experience the pleasure derived from control and aggression. And deep down, these viewers understand it. “The second you have an orgasm and that passion sinks out of your body, and you’re still watching the movie, you start to really see what’s going on,” one male college student said. “This is not sexy. This is not sex. This is not how I want to experience sex.”

- Chyung Sun, co-director of The Price of Pleasure
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/11/11/does-pornography-deserve-its-bad-rap/pornography-has-become-more-hard-core

[dionysus]

88. yikes. “ejaculation on a woman’s face” isn't even on my list....

[Warren DeMontague]

100. Well, obviously it's what every man who watches porn has been programmed to want.

According the clearly infallible anecdotal evidence of the author of an anti-porn book.

[liberalhistorian]

148. Heh.

Zing. Snicker.

[woolldog]

101. This is such a narrow and inaccurate view of pron

There is so much out there catering to different tastes. Some pron reflects what's noted in your post. Other pron is the exact opposite with the roles reversed.

[Warren DeMontague]

103. The linked author also thinks "men ejaculating in womens' mouths" indicates oppression.

Funny, on my planet it is one -although by no means the only- relatively common event in acts of mutually enjoyed oral sex.

[opiate69]

124. Found a pretty good critique of the good "Dr"'s film...

http://www.inventednonsense.com/2011/11/review-price-of-pleasure.html

oh, and another..
http://sm-feminist.blogspot.com/2008/10/price-of-pleasure-deconstructed.html

[redqueen]

135. Go over to redtube or youporn or wherever and count them

Count the videos that use language that degrades woman. Count the ones that show content that degrades or abuses women.

Then count the ones that show "the reverse". Then we'll talk.

I'm sick of the false balance that's constantly used to try to defend this shit.

[Warren DeMontague]

161. The documentary filmmaker you link upthread apparently considers blowjobs "degrading"

And then expresses shock and horror that they turn up in so much pornography.

[AgingAmerican]

227. Don't watch it anymore then

If you cannot handle it. Seriously.

[redqueen]

237. Should we also ignore racist content online?

What a silly thing to say.

[AgingAmerican]

289. I would say

Don't indulge in that either

[redqueen]

291. I would say sunlight is the best disinfectant

and that your 'just ignore it' plan only makes things worse.

[Warren DeMontague]

269. I looked at the front pages of the sites you referenced- for research, of course-

and the most common invective used, language wise, was far and away some variation of "fuck" or "fucking".

[Threedifferentones]

132. It would seem undeniable that a large portion of porn is deeply misogynistic.

I watched a lot of it in my teens...before I actually had sex. Of course my HS girlfriend was totally turned off by almost everything I had ever seen in that shit. IMO empathetic men who actually do relate to women as equals should quickly become fed up with most porn, because it obviously depicts sex which is more violent than most couples, and much less pleasurable for the female partner.

And that, to me, is the most insidious thing about porn: hetero teenage boys will be turned on by ANYTHING that features pretty naked women. But, so much internet porn is made where she is obviously just a toy for his pleasure, and this can trick boys into thinking such sex is normal and common. I believe this because it happened to me, although only for a few years, about the ages of 12-16.

Porn does not have to feature so much "hard fucking" and an endless series of "facials." Of course there exists some that doesn't, but to me it seems clear that the prevalence of male-domination in typical porn flicks reflects attitudes about women and sex that are taken for granted much more often than they are stated openly: many men view women as toys to be used for pleasure and then set aside until the next fuck session.

Of course, porn is hardly the only area of life in which the male experience is given primacy. For fuck's sake, some of the world's biggest religions, including the largest in our country, insist that God is male, that men were made in His image, and that He made women for us!

So, the big question for me is this:

If in time our society becomes more equitable, will we see a change in what a typical porn film presents?

Or, in other words:

Porn obviously has the power to shape what people, especially boys, think about sex. But, to what extent is it a cause of misogyny, and to what extent is it merely a reflection of the wider culture?

[redqueen]

136. Thank you SO VERY MUCH for your thoughtful, informed comment.

It is truly a breath of fresh air.

[Kali]

143. I wasn't even going to read this thread

because of the obvious trolling of the OP and the predictable results, but somehow got caught in it again today. I am kind of glad now. EXCELLENT comment, kicking for your reply. Thank you.

[redqueen]

151. That's the kind of post that gives me hope. nt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

167. Thank you for asking the question and looking at the larger context. excellent post. n/t

[riderinthestorm]

179. You rock. Many thanks for your perspective. Nt

[YoungDemCA]

188. Great post

Seriously, well articulated and thoughtful response there.

[nomorenomore08]

246. I also want to acknowledge the excellence of this post.

And while I would argue that such material reflects an already fucked-up society more than anything else, I don't deny the possible role it plays in mis-educating the youth RE: sexual relationships. Particularly in the absence of comprehensive sex ed, which AFAIK every other developed nation offers to its students. One more way in which our country is far behind the First World as a whole.

[cui bono]

165. All threads supporting porn remind me of this:

[redqueen]

212. Thank you for posting that.

I hope more people watch it.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

81. "An anti-objectification, anti-porn, anti-prostitution feminist."

Me too ... with the caveat being I feel this way about commercial porn. Sometimes couples like to have their own thing for spice.

But commercialized sex work is pure objectification. I'm not sure laws are the answer. I think empowerment and equal opportunity will make far more progress. But then there is a contingent that actively pursues sex work.

I have a friend from college will tell you straight up that she can make hundreds of dollars a night simply by dancing a few hours. She's smart and educated but the money is more than she'd make in the top of her field The easy money is a lure and that cannot be dismissed with a wave of the hand.

Should it be quashed altogether or do we recognize "the human condition" and provide regulated outlets for those who will always pay to objectify and those who are willing to take their money?

I really don't sense a comfortable answer either way.

[leftyladyfrommo]

144. I'm with you.

The reality of the porn and prostitution industries is that women are degraded.

I just can't even imagine how awful the lives of so many prostitutes are. So many are drug addicts. So many are beaten senseless. So many are killed.

I can't believe anyone could support this stuff.

[redqueen]

150. I used to love porn.

But if you browse those sites the amount of derision and sheer hate for women is palpable.

Eventually I couldn't rationalize it anymore.

[liberalhistorian]

145. If women freely choose to be involved

with porn and prostitution and have no problem with it, and people freely choose to view porn (believe it or not, many couples even do so together), then there should be NO issue, NO problem and it is NOT YOUR BUSINESS to tell them what they can and cannot do and/or watch. Period.

[redqueen]

149. This isn't about any individual or what they like.

It is about what this act represents to the men who consume this kind of porn, and what that says about our patriarchal, pornified culture.

Sexual acts aren't above analysis, especially when considering the greater social context

Some sexual acts - and it's important to remember that we're not talking about individuals in a bedroom, we're talking about porn, which has an influence on society - are about domination, control, and humiliation.

It's important to recognize the significance of this, in a world where violence against women, and specifically sexual violence against women, is a fucking pandemic.

[leftyladyfrommo]

211. I guess it depends on whether you care about women.

I do. And I would move to shut down porn and prostitution in a nanosecond if I could. Women were not put on this earth to service horny men.

Women who get hooked into the sex trade are always losers.

Personally, I think men who think porn and prostitution are great are just self centered jerks who don't give a flying fuck about the women who are destroyed by it. They just want what they want and don't give a shit who it hurts.

Thinking it's all OK if freely chosen is just a huge rationalization that completely falls apart if you analyze the reality of it all.

[Violet_Crumble]

205. OMG. Does Noam never learn from past experience?

Not that I think there's anything wrong with having an interview appear in Hustler, but after the Faurisson debacle you'd think he'd be insisting on seeing transcripts, getting background on what he's contributing to etc. For those unfamiliar with the whole Faurisson thing, he's a Holocaust denier who used without Chomsky's knowledge an essay on free speech that Chomsky had written as the foreward for a book of his. And when asked for comment, Chomsky went into a defence of free speech instead of looking into the background of Faurisson.

To cut a long story short. I'm a massive fan of Chomsky. I've read most of his books and admire him for what he's written on US foreign policy and the I/P conflict. But that doesn't mean I should sit and nod blindly with what he says on other stuff that he's not an expert on. I don't even agree with him on some of the things he says about the I/P conflict, so why should it impress me that he doesn't like porn?

p.s. I hope everyone appreciates the subtle way I've attempted to turn this thread into the current huge issue in GD which has managed to delegate the endless and repetitive porn threads to a very distant back seat in what people are talking about in GD.

[newcriminal]

3. This from the nipple alerter.

[Michigander_Life]

4. If you remember correctly, I wasn't against the nipple

In fact I exclaimed that I love nipples. They just need to be accompanied by NSFW tags and the poster refused to add them even after numerous DU members requested them. It's just common forum courtesy.

[rug]

11. "I love nipples."

I exclaimed.

[Michigander_Life]

13. Who doesn't?

[rug]

15. No one but you don't see them exclaimg about it in public.

Common courtesy.

[Michigander_Life]

16. No, that's not common courtesy.

Nipples are wonderful.

[rug]

18. "Nipples are wonderful."

No wonder you love them.

[Michigander_Life]

20. Who doesn't?

[Warren DeMontague]

25. At first glance, I thought he was wheeling a loaf of bread.

To Wheeling.



Good times, good times.

[rug]

33. Here's the bread

[Warren DeMontague]

51. "Your father wanted you to have this, when you were old enough, but your uncle wouldn't allow it"

"Thought you'd follow old Obi-Wan on some damn fool crusade, like your father did"

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

41. Probably that guy in the Tosh.0 video clip

who was shown slicing his off with a razor blade after gripping them with pliers.

Unless it was some form of 'tough love'.

[Warren DeMontague]

7. Worst. Superhero. Ever.

[Warren DeMontague]

5. Consenting adults should be free to make their own decisions about their lives and bodies.

As a general rule.

[Michigander_Life]

8. Precisely.

[hifiguy]

86. If they are of sound mind, I agree completely.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

169. define *sound mind* just for clarification, please. legal terminology?

[Warren DeMontague]

201. I tell you what sound mind doesn't mean- it doesn't mean "anyone who only does what I would"

Most adults are capable of making decisions, even when the decisions are shitty ones. It is only in rare circumstances that the law, or a judge, determines people aren't responsible enough to make their own decisions, sign legal documents, etc.

Which is as it should be.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

210. thank you, Mr. DeMontague.

So glad you are the arbiter of how things *should* be, because we all know that life is *always* as it *should* be, yes?

I know my life *always* goes according to plan. And, I am sure yours does, too.

Personally, I think you made a *shitty* decision to reply to me.

So, you see how disagreements can arise, right?

PS = I realize this is a public message board and, one can jump in where ever one pleases. And, I see now that you have absolutely no respect for me or what I want.

[Warren DeMontague]

240. I told you, i don't pay attention to personalities, here.

[hifiguy]

232. Well, the legal definition derived from the M'Naughten case

is, IIRC, being able to know the difference between right and wrong. M'Naughten is still applied in many jurisdictions. I think it is an unsound definition as it excludes many types of recognized and serious mental illness.

I'd use a broader definition - if one is able to attend to one's everyday business in a competent manner without any assistance one is of sound mind in a commonsense way. Basic mental competence, free of mental debility or illness might be another way of putting it.

[nomorenomore08]

248. Of course they should. But that doesn't mean we can't critique the sex industry

as a less-than-pleasant facet of unbridled capitalism. We can respect individual choices while also putting them in context - I don't see any particular contradiction there.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

254. This ^ ^ ^

[Warren DeMontague]

264. Part of my problem with these discussions- and really, if there's anything more pointless than a

porn "debate" on DU, I'm hard pressed (excuse the pun) to think what it is.... is the inevitable jumping off point of "porn is..." or "most porn is".

I've given up on getting people to think twice about their attachement to labels, as a general rule, but the simple fact of this specific instance is, "porn" is more a medium of expression than a monolithic entity. Again, it's like making sweeping generalizations about "music" when that can cover everything from a symphony to me singing in the shower (albeit, barely)... even "the sex industry" is a pretty broad descriptor.

People absolutely can critique the sex industry or media they find objectionable, however, if they're going to make broad sweeping generalizations, they don't have the right to expect no one will challenge them.

[nomorenomore08]

265. All very true. Really, it's more "unbridled capitalism" I have a problem with than anything.

That is, allowing the strong to exploit the weak, or the rich to exploit the poor, without restriction (legal or otherwise). And I don't think it's any coincidence that mainstream porn (or much of it anyway) has become harsher and more callous as lassez-faire capitalism has become a relatively unchallenged dogma within mainstream American society.

[mindwalker_i]

6. You're braver than I thought

[Warren DeMontague]

10. "You came in that thing?"

WHAT???? ITS A STAR WARS REFERENCE JEEEZ

[mindwalker_i]

12. Glad someone got it

[Warren DeMontague]

21. Challenge me to a nerd-off, will you?

MUAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA

[mindwalker_i]

23. That would be

Twisted And Evil.

[mindwalker_i]

87. Dang, I was kinf of hoping this would go on a little longer

Meesa think that woulda been fun!

[Warren DeMontague]

162. "That's what she said!"

[mindwalker_i]

191. Well, I can't beat that

[Warren DeMontague]

241. Dont beat yourself up.

There is no sense in self flagellation on this.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

9. i think there can be plenty wrong with it but criminalizing it is not the way to go

because it makes those most vulnerable unable to access resources/safety

I think unless you are willing to do what it takes to cure addiction/poverty something will always be wrong with porn/prostitution, but most people are unwilling to inconvenience themselves on both a societal level and an individual level to cure poverty. nor is there really an easy answer to poverty just floating around.

[safeinOhio]

44. The more forbidden the fruit….

the better it taste.

[hifiguy]

73. You always make such good sense.

[AuntPatsy]

109. Good post

[daleanime]

190. Amen....

[nomorenomore08]

249. +1000

And yes, we need to do something serious about poverty in this country. More so its disproportionate impact on women and their children. Then maybe some folks wouldn't be so desperate as to resort to illegal or quasi-legal ways of making a living.

[leftstreet]

24. Why taxed?

Off topic, but I'm curious

Everyone always say this

Legalize (insert whatever) and be sure to tax it

Why?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

27. Why shouldn't it be?

We tax everything else, so why should whatever the 'it' du jour that was apparently illegal before, escape taxation if legalized?

[leftstreet]

30. Was that the rallying cry behind legalizing abortion?

Make it safe, legal, and tax it



Don't get it

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

34. Oh, you were asking why is tax it specifically added as a talking point.

It's to help get the more fiscally conservative onboard with things they might otherwise oppose.

They might not like stoners, for instance, but they love tax revenue, especially if it's coming from those they consider sinners.

[leftstreet]

36. Ah. 'Look, we can all make money off this!'

That's kinda what I hear

I know the point you're making though

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

40. That's how you get the people further right onboard with anything ;)

grab em by the greed.

[Michigander_Life]

29. Because taxes can be used for good things

Marihuana taxes to drug addiction programs; prostitution taxes to women's health services, etc.

[leftstreet]

31. So you're saying prostitution is a health risk? n/t

[Michigander_Life]

35. It has certain health risks associated with it.

Especially when it is confined to back alleys and seedy motels because of self-righteous anti-choicers. Just look at the miraculous incidents of STD reduction when it is legalized.

[leftstreet]

39. Sure. Your OP said there was 'nothing wrong with it'

Sounds like you're saying the risks and dangers of prostitution can be mitigated through legalization, etc, etc, etc

[Michigander_Life]

45. There isn't anything wrong with it.

Driving to work has certain risks. Walking to work and biking to work have certain risks. Police officers have certain risks with their jobs. So do firemen. And cab drivers.

Life is full of risk. Risk doesn't make wrong, and your attempt to merge the two it is extremely telling.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

37. I'd certainly consider it such.

It's the main reason AIDS spread so rapidly in Africa. Miners from all over would hire prostitutes and either pass it along to them or get it from them, then go back home and pass it along to their wives.

Even with prophylaxis, you can still wind up transferring various diseases or critters like pubic lice.

Ignoring any moral issues at all, anyone who is a nexus between a lot of different sexual partners, whether paid or unpaid, is a lot more likely to catch something and to pass it along. So definitely a public health risk issue.

[dsc]

131. so should be ban people from having mulitple sex partners even if no money changes hands?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

160. I didn't see the word 'ban' anywhere in my comment.

How about we actually just educate people about the real risks, statistics, and about how germs work? I know that my own 'sex ed' 20 or so years back was largely useless in terms of realistic assessment of the risks.

[nomorenomore08]

250. So much wrong with society can be traced to poor education, or the lack of it entirely.

And of course, much of this is by design - keep people stupid and desperate, and they'll believe anything. Including the bullshit spewed by right-wing nutjob politicians.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

252. Well, as much as I'd like to blame a lot of it on the RW

I've got to say at least anecdotally that the way one looks at the world can change drastically over time. A lot of those trite old expressions are true, in a way, which is how they wound up being trite old expressions. Like 'youth is wasted on the young'. Most of us probably wasted a lot of our time on earth because we never really gave a lot of thought towards working towards a specific purpose and life path early on, and instead merely did what other people told us we should. Go to school, get good grades, go to college...as if it was some magic mantra, and didn't need to be paired with an actual goal.

If I were magically young again, I would like to think that I would dedicate myself with more focus towards long term goals, and not simply go along in cruise control for the first three decades or so, before I woke up and realized I needed to take charge of my own life. (Now part of that might simply have been a result of privilege. If I were a minority, I wouldn't have had the ability to have spent so much time on 'cruise control', and would probably be in jail or dead by now if I had. I had the 'privilege' of wasting my life : P ...)

[nomorenomore08]

257. I hear you on that. I'm coming up on 3 decades myself (in October) and I already feel

like I've wasted much of my life, albeit perhaps by somewhat different means. Since graduating college in 2007 I've been sporadically employed, with no real experience accumulated, and if not for my fiction writing I would have almost nothing to show for the last 7 years. But on the bright side, I also realize I have plenty of time left.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

259. One thing I realized about college...

was that you can always just scope out the textbooks used for many classes, and simply buy and read them on your own. If you don't need another degree, you can keep learning without paying the bloated tuition costs. Or even read up on what will end up being classes in a future degree, so that when you do get around to working on that next degree, you're already pretty familiar with the field, and do a lot better gradewise, as well as being able to go into greater depth when working on that next degree. You want to work in field 'X'? Find out what texts are being used for the classes in the advanced degrees, buy em and start reading. Even if you never go on, you'll be able to talk the talk and demonstrate your understanding better than the other applicants who simply did that first degree and stopped.

[Warren DeMontague]

293. Oh please. No offense. But you're still really young.

I remember feeling "old" when I hit 30. Now, everyone that age looks like a kid to me.

Seriously, you have lots of time- your biggest enemy is that feeling of "oh well, im old"

And I'll say this- i had a lot of crazy fun in my 20s, but the stability and grounding that came in my 30s was way better. And my 40s have been better than my 30s.

[Blaukraut]

43. Income tax and SS and Medicare deductions would be my guess

Which would actually be a pretty good idea. Even (or likely especially) prositutes and adult entertainment actors would like to be able to retire and know they have a safety net.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

26. Declarations of absolutes are almost always a mistake.

Unless you're talking about universal physical constants, there's almost (notice I even caveat this declaration ; ) never a case where the incredibly broad, sweeping statement is 100% correct.

And proof on the ground would show that there is plenty wrong with both as they exist in the real world. Now some of what is wrong is certainly not exclusive to those fields. Many participants are coerced, even if not by physical force or addiction, into taking part in the 'trades' as a result of economic forces. Which is wrong in any field. You shouldn't actually be forced by necessity into any field of endeavour, but should participate because you enjoy doing so. While there might be some people in those trades who do enjoy their work, we've got plenty of evidence that far too many don't.

Legalization, regulation, and taxation would address *some* of the problems involved, but certainly not all.

I say more power to people who want to get paid to 'get their freak on', but the reality is, and will remain, that there's a lot of evil entwined in those fields. You might do some reading on sex slave trafficking before making such a broad declaration. Even your proposed solution will not entirely end such practices, even if it somewhat diminishes them.

[nomorenomore08]

251. +1000000

Very well stated!

[randys1]

28. Porn can be addictive, especially if you mix drugs with it and it can

alter the way a man looks at and treats Women...

I dont know if there are studies about this but I know from first hand experience this is true.

I think it should be legal, I think all drugs should be legal and controlled with rehabs on every corner.

Prostitution should be legal and controlled for safety reasons.

These are adult activities, and adult societies don't outlaw adult activities, we just regulate them so nobody gets hurt.

[Warren DeMontague]

243. Tying your shoes can be addictive, if you mix it with high-grade heroin.

I think- and I've said this before- we do a disservice to people with physiological addiction issues by labeling all sorts of even habitual, negative behaviors, "addiction".

I think there's a big difference between an alcoholic nearly dying from the DTs, and someone who has trouble keeping themselves from shopping.

That's not to say those habituated behaviors can't be harmful, or that those folks don't deserve compassion and help. But it's not the same thing.

[regnaD kciN]

32. The biggest thing wrong with prostitution...

...is sex-trafficking and slavery. Legalization would, at the very least, reduce that particular horror.

[Squinch]

57. Wrong. See post 55.

[stevenleser]

75. Yes, and #68. nt

[seabeyond]

78. Legalization increases trafficking and slaves.

On iPhone so not gonna link to the many many articles from the countries that have legalized and are now looking how to solve the problem of increased trafficking

[phleshdef]

106. Consenting adults should be able to fuck however they want, money or no money.

I say that as a happily married man that would never pay for it.

I'm not convinced that it actually increases sex trafficking, but even if there was some connection, it doesn't change the fact that consenting adults should not face any punishment for doing what they want to do with their bodies.

We can fight sex trafficking and sexual slavery and still allow people to have a freedom they should be allowed to have.

[seabeyond]

113. Are you arguing with yourself? You post has nothing to do with mine,

But stating you are not educated on the fact that legalization increases trafficking and these countries legalized are looking for solutions to an increased problem. Otherwise you post means absolutely nothing as a reply to me.

[phleshdef]

115. I was speaking to the notion that whether its true or not that legal prostitution...

....leads to more trafficking doesn't matter to me. My post had everything to do yours. You were talking about reports that suggest that's the case.

I look at that the same way that I see how free speech leads to more hate speech and death threats and people having nasty arguments on television. Or the same way freedom of religion means that people are free to brainwash their children into believing in some really out of touch, non-reality based bullshit that breeds a LOT of bad consequences for society.

And that's really what my point is, consequences. Freedom has consequences.

I don't know if you agree with my point or not, but it seemed like you were hinting at a position that might differ.

[seabeyond]

116. Interesting to know slavery holds such little signifance to you.

[phleshdef]

121. Strawman. It holds immense significance to me...

...but as a separate issue that needs to be combated separately.

Heres the thing, people can, do and will always exploit the leeway that freedoms grant them in order to enable them to engage in disgusting, morally bankrupt and a lot of times, illegal, activities. But that's no reason to deny those freedoms for people who aren't doing that.

[seabeyond]

122. Trafficking/slavery was my only issue so I hardly see it as a mere... Strawman. Done...

[phleshdef]

123. Really? Is that the way you read my statement? Really?!

[CBGLuthier]

38. Since prostitution will always exist it would probably be best if it were regulated

But, to say there is nothing wrong with it makes me wonder if you would like to sell YOUR body ten to twenty times a day always wondering when one of your "clients" will decide to kill you instead of using your body as a piece of meat.

As for porn i have finally reached a point in my life where I can not even stand to be exposed to it. Sure some folks make a good living making it but many are forced into it.

So your initial argument that there is nothing wrong with these things is flawed. Very, very flawed.

[LittleBlue]

42. The biggest irony here is that they make this argument for abortion

For example: If we deprive women of legal abortion, abortions will happen anyway, but the methods won't be safe. It makes sense to them when you put it that way. Because it's logical. We on the left approach abortion more logically than Republicans, who cannot see past their ideology to make the rational decision: safe, legal abortion regulated by medicine and science, not fear and emotion. In this, we see reason.

But tragically, some who see reason on abortion can't apply it to the pointless War on Drugs. Or to the pointless (and futile) outlawing of prostitution. They are intellectually imprisoned by their ideology, depriving themselves of rational thinking on this subject.

You criminalize it, drive it underground, the demand is still there, so it harms people and helps no one.

This inconsistent application of reason causes harm. Can they see it? No.

[Michigander_Life]

46. Great post. Completely accurate.

[redqueen]

47. Feminists want to regulate porn and criminalize only the buying of sex.

So the 'criminalizing it makes it worse!' song and dance is a red herring.

When it is legal for an individual (not a pimp or gangs laundering money for organized criminal outfits) to sell sex, but not to buy it, this puts more power in the prostitutes' hands. They can now call the cops on violent, abusive sex buyers.

As for porn, no it isn't going away but we need a lot more education about sex (not reproduction but porn specifically) before kids see it, so this has to happen in elementary school.

[LittleBlue]

49. It's a new spin on an old idea

It's been tried. Vice squads have existed and targeted johns in the US for decades.

Under decriminalization and regulation, sex workers who have been abused could also report it to the police. In fact, they could report it to a regulatory agency in charge of overseeing their safety. And since we've established that making it illegal has never stopped it in over 2000 years, why would you continue to support criminalization?

If your concern is truly for the sex worker, then you should support them when they demand decriminalization. They know what will make them safer, so listen to Maxine Doogan of a sex workers union:

Law enforcement efforts that go after clients ultimately increase risks for sex workers, she continued. "Any criminalization of our customers is going to bring us more violence. ... It further criminalizes the transaction." For example, when customers are concerned about being associated with sex workers, negotiations may end up being rushed, which makes it harder for sex workers to protect themselves, she said.

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/SevenDays/archives/2014/02/10/sex-workers-to-protest-anti-trafficking-panel-say-john-label-is-offensive

Listen to the tidal wave of support from sex workers unions for decriminalization.

[redqueen]

50. Listen to a pimp? I don't fucking think so.

Again I have to wonder why liberals who question the propaganda coming from pro industry mouthpieces from every other multi-billion dollar industry suddenly become credulous as hell when they're mouthpieces for this industry.

[LittleBlue]

60. You would rather persist with an idea that has never worked?

You think it's a coincidence that outlawing alcohol, drugs, prostitution and abortion has never prevented any of those?

In each case, where someone demanded those services, they were provided. Only in the black market, where the safety of the customers and the workers are jeopardized.

I just don't see how you could ignore thousands of years of history to cling blindly to the belief of criminalization as something positive.

[nomorenomore08]

253. She's in favor of making it legal to sell sex, but illegal to buy it, as in Sweden.

I don't necessarily agree with her - I think the "Swedish Model" comes with problems of its own - but don't misrepresent her views.

I wholeheartedly oppose drug prohibition, just as you do. But I don't think the buying and selling of human bodies is perfectly analogous by any means.

[hifiguy]

77. This really is the only thing that matters here

"Under decriminalization and regulation, sex workers who have been abused could also report it to the police. In fact, they could report it to a regulatory agency in charge of overseeing their safety."

That is an unqualified good.

[Warren DeMontague]

52. I'm curious as to how specifically you define "regulate"

Particularly as it applies to as broad a categorization as "porn", which can encompass everything from a high budget Andrew Blake (Immortalized as Jackie Treehorn in The Big Lebowski) production to an exhibitionist couple having sex in front of a webcam for someone else to watch for free.

[hifiguy]

79. The "who decides" question is what makes this entire line of thought

utterly, completely and totally untenable. Always has, always will. It also makes such attempts unconstitutional for the reasons cited in American Booksellers Ass'n v. Hudnut 771 F2d 323 (7th Cir 1985), affd, 475 US 1001 (1986). See also G. Stone, American Booksellers Association v Hudnut: "The Government Must Leave to the People theEvaluation of Ideas" 77 University of Chicago Law Review 1219 (2010).

[Warren DeMontague]

80. It was figured out a while back that "censorship" doesn't play well.

That's why MacKinnon and Dworkin tried to pretend that wasn't the gist of their legislation-- although that was obviously the intended end result; and pretty much everyone else saw through that gambit, particularly the courts, as you point out.

[hifiguy]

85. I know it well.

i was in student government at the U of Minnesota when Mackinnon and Dworkin were trying to get this passed in Minneapolis. it caused one hell of a row there, too, and I was in the middle of it. Don Fraser, the mayor, who had been the most liberal of liberal stalwarts as a Congressman for ages before coming back home to Mpls, vetoed it twice if I remember it right. "Unconstitutional on its face" was the reason he gave.

I had Larry Tribe for Advanced Con Law: First Amendment in law school. Let it be said he and Judge Easterbrook are seldom on the same side of issues, at least back in those days, and Tribe thought it was a supremely well-reasoned and airtight opinion.

[woolldog]

105. Your post #79 need to be put into

proper blue book format.

[hifiguy]

140. I found mysellf wondering how far from Bluebook I had

strayed after I posted it. Yes, I am a total nerd.

[nomorenomore08]

255. Greater protections for workers. Which we need in *every* industry, not just porn.

And if we weren't so stupidly knee-jerk anti-labor in this country, then maybe we could achieve that.

[Michigander_Life]

128. You're describing puritans, not feminists. Thought you should know.

[leftyladyfrommo]

213. This feminist wants to do away with porn and prostitution.

Porn and the sex trade are all male driven.

I have never even heard of a single woman who went "I want to grow up and be a prostitute". They get into it for a whole bunch of awful reasons.

Most of the women who get into the porn trade started out wanting to be actresses. They are very young and the men in the movie industry just manipulate the hell of them.

I just hate that whole scene. The men who drive it for the sex and the money need to be eradicated.

[redqueen]

214. Glad to hear from you

You might find this interesting:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025359246

[leftyladyfrommo]

215. The older I get the more radical I get.

When I was younger I really bought into a lot of that male driven shit. Boy, I don't any more.

[redqueen]

216. Same here...

but take heart, thanks to the internet, feminists are able to network and communicate like never before. So the information and experiences that took us decades to compile before everything clicked for us is being shared with young women and girls, and that means more and more radical feminists willing to fight back against the injustices which to us, as young women, seemed insurmountable, if not completely natural and right.

[leftyladyfrommo]

218. I cannot for the life of me understand why any woman wants to get married.

The more I read about the state of most women's marriages the more I wonder why anyone in their right mind would put up with it. I know there are some good marriages out there but I wonder what the actual percentage is? So many women seem to be stuck in a form of sexual slavery. "Men want sex 3 times a week, or 5 or 5 times a day or what ever the fuck it is). Or they will divorce you?

I just read a book about the women in the Hassidic community. What they live with is just unbelievable. They go from being a poor little 16 year old who dresses in all black, cover every inch of you dresses, not knowing a thing about sex. Then they get married and they are expected to drop everything and go have sex with their husband the minute he feels the need. Then you get to raise 11 children and die from overwork. I think that scenario plays out in a whole lot of the ultra conservative communities of lots of religions.

Women are still slaves just like they always have been.

[redqueen]

219. Because girls are conditioned to be nice.

And women don't want to be mean. So we whitewash a whole lot of shit in order to avoid looking like 'man-haters'.

We need to stop worrying about how we are perceived and just be honest. If we did maybe fewer women would stay in situations in which they are exploited. Some women grow up in an environment where the woman is treated as an equal, and those women are less likely to accept the kind of bullshit most women grow up thinking is normal.

[leftyladyfrommo]

290. This was funny.

I know a family with 3 boys and 3 girls - all smarter than shit. Their mother was a very strong, smart woman. And the girls were all strong, smart, outspoken.

The girls all married men who were just kind of dipshits. They were nice dipshits.

And the boys all married very conventional homemaker type women.

I always just thought that was strange. I was surprised that the girls got married at all. And I thought that the boys who had grown up with these strong sisters would chose strong women.

Just the opposite.

[hifiguy]

74. Bravo!

[cui bono]

194. Wow. That is such a wrong and disgusting analogy.

Surely you've heard or read that GIRLS, preteens even, are abducted and forced into prostitution. Held against their will and made to fuck several men in a day. GIRLS. You want more of that?

Also, how many women do you think actually want to be prostitute vs. how many do it because they are messed up, drug addicts, come from abused homes and wouldn't do it if they thought they could have a better life? How many women do you think control their own livelihood/business?

How in the world do you even get to the point of thinking prostitution and abortion can even be compared like that?
Talk about being intellectually imprisoned.

[Takket]

53. legalizing prostitution would not help women much, unless....

You basically made every single woman register with the government and COMPLETELY individual in her prostitution. No "companies" of many women. if you allow prostitution corporations too many unscrupulous people are still basically going to use the threat of harm to treat the women like slaves, but now they'll only have to pay them minimum wage... which isn't much better. The pimps of today will be the corporation owners of tomorrow.

The only way to fully guarantee the safety of women is for them to be completely individual "private contractors".

As for porn, well, considering you can watch it for free on the internet, I really see no advantage to make it illegal in any way. Yes, it can contribute to problems in men with addiction, but that's a matter for a man and his Doctor to work out.

[Warren DeMontague]

56. I personally think we do a disservice to addicts when we label all potentially problematic behavior

As "addiction". Anyone who was nursed an alcoholic through the DTs or a heroin addict in withdrawls can tell you there is a world of difference between physiological addiction and even habitual, bad, destructive behavior that is very hard for people to stop.

As for "porn addiction", studies have indicated that a large number of the people who self-diagnose that problem are not folks who use or look at porn with any greater frequency or negative external consequences than anyone else, but rather people whose belief systems (usually religious) have convinced them that this behavior is negative and shameful, yet they do it anyway much as many other people do as well. In short, they're doing what other people do, they just feel guilty about it.

Similarly LGBT people may be convinced they are "addicted" to same sex activities, and be shamed into trying to "cure" themselves by their churches or whatnot.

I think shaming people over healthy consenting adult expressions of sexuality is wrong.

[Takket]

66. which is pretty much exactly why I said porn addiction is between a person and their doctor.

if someone thinks they have a problem they should be discussing it with a professional. society should not be telling them what they are doing is wrong by creating laws that punish someone for enjoying pornography.

[Warren DeMontague]

67. I agree.

And in my experience people can developed problematic, even habituated relationships with all sorts of things, be they porn or gambling or chocolate or shopping or nose picking or even attending 12 step meetings.

Still, I do think the word "addiction" has hit a point of overuse.

[Takket]

71. Agree...

Addiction is strictly a clinical diagnosis. I mean it in that sense. I wouldn't say that someone that watches porn regularly but it is NOT causing harmful consequences is "addicted" to it.

but everyone throws it around.

"I'm addicted to coffee"

or baseball

or Chipotle.

and the word loses its meaning

a loved one is a diagnosed with bipolar.... ever since I notice how often people throw the word bipolar around to describe anyone who was happy one day and sad/mad the next. it makes me sick. so I understand your feelings about the word "addiction". Sounds like you or someone close to you has had to deal with the "real medical" condition.

[hifiguy]

76. The word no longer has any meaning.

It is used colloquially in a very imprecise manner and so called "clinicians" who seek to reap huge financial rewards from curing things that may not even exist have stretched the word to include as pathological virtualy anything that stimulates the pleasure centers of the brain. Follow the money.

[JaydenD]

54. There can be a lot wrong with both

but don't let me destroy your happy meal.

In a safe and respectful environment there is nothing wrong with porn or prostitution but we know that is not true too often.

[Squinch]

55. This study has been posted here on DU over and over and over, yet none of you valiant anti-prudery

warriors ever seems to address the facts of the study.

So here it is again, the study that shows that where prostitution is legalized, human trafficking increases, usually significantly. It has happened in country after country. This study encompasses over 100 countries.

Its findings make your OP ridiculous.

I'd say, "Educate yourself," but I am pretty sure that's unlikely.

A 2012 study published in World Development, “Does Legalized Prostitution Increase Human Trafficking?” investigates the effect of legalized prostitution on human trafficking inflows into high-income countries. The researchers — Seo-Yeong Cho of the German Institute for Economic Research, Axel Dreher of the University of Heidelberg and Eric Neumayer of the London School of Economics and Political Science — analyzed cross-sectional data of 116 countries to determine the effect of legalized prostitution on human trafficking inflows. In addition, they reviewed case studies of Denmark, Germany and Switzerland to examine the longitudinal effects of legalizing or criminalizing prostitution. The study’s findings include:

Countries with legalized prostitution are associated with higher human trafficking inflows than countries where prostitution is prohibited. The scale effect of legalizing prostitution, i.e. expansion of the market, outweighs the substitution effect, where legal sex workers are favored over illegal workers.

On average, countries with legalized prostitution report a greater incidence of human trafficking inflows. The effect of legal prostitution on human trafficking inflows is stronger in high-income countries than middle-income countries. Because trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation requires that clients in a potential destination country have sufficient purchasing power, domestic supply acts as a constraint.

Criminalization of prostitution in Sweden resulted in the shrinking of the prostitution market and the decline of human trafficking inflows.

Cross-country comparisons of Sweden with Denmark (where prostitution is decriminalized) and Germany (expanded legalization of prostitution) are consistent with the quantitative analysis, showing that trafficking inflows decreased with criminalization and increased with legalization.

The type of legalization of prostitution does not matter — it only matters whether prostitution is legal or not. Whether third-party involvement (persons who facilitate the prostitution businesses, i.e, “pimps”) is allowed or not does not have an effect on human trafficking inflows into a country.

Legalization of prostitution itself is more important in explaining human trafficking than the type of legalization.

Democracies have a higher probability of increased human-trafficking inflows than non-democratic countries. There is a 13.4% higher probability of receiving higher inflows in a democratic country than otherwise.

- See more at: http://journalistsresource.org/studies/international/human-rights/legalized-prostitution-human-trafficking-inflows#sthash.nUI0kGjw.dpuf

[leftstreet]

61. You're talking about global trafficking

Excellent link

Unfortunately it will fall on mostly deaf ears here

US 'middle class' liberals usually defend their own objective ideas of prostitution, with very little understanding of the issues at stake or the scope of the crisis

They (sadly and sincerely) think they're defending a WOMAN'S RIGHT !!!11 to sell sex from a kiosk at the local suburban mall

[Squinch]

133. Yes. But if a woman doesn't want other women or children to be trafficked, she's just a prude.

[stevenleser]

68. That article includes many potential pros and cons of legalization.

I include a snippet that starts with your last sentence. I wonder why you stopped it there?

There is a 13.4% higher probability of receiving higher inflows in a democratic country than otherwise.
While trafficking inflows may be lower where prostitution is criminalized, there may be severe repercussions for those working in the industry. For example, criminalizing prostitution penalizes sex workers rather than the people who earn most of the profits (pimps and traffickers).

“The likely negative consequences of legalised prostitution on a country’s inflows of human trafficking might be seen to support those who argue in favour of banning prostitution, thereby reducing the flows of trafficking,” the researchers state. “However, such a line of argumentation overlooks potential benefits that the legalisation of prostitution might have on those employed in the industry. Working conditions could be substantially improved for prostitutes — at least those legally employed — if prostitution is legalised. Prohibiting prostitution also raises tricky ‘freedom of choice’ issues concerning both the potential suppliers and clients of prostitution services.”

[mythology]

120. Legalizing prostitution in Germany increased human trafficking.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/human-trafficking-persists-despite-legality-of-prostitution-in-germany-a-902533.html

Alina says that she and the other women were required to pay the pimps €800 a week. She shared a bed in a sleeping room with three other women. There was no other furniture. All she saw of Germany was the Esso gas station around the corner, where she was allowed to go to buy cigarettes and snacks, but only in the company of a guard. The rest of the time, says Alina, she was kept locked up in the club.

Prosecutors learned that the women in the club had to offer vaginal, oral and anal sex, and serve several men at the same time in so-called gangbang sessions. The men didn't always use condoms. "I was not allowed to say no to anything," says Alina.

deregulation had "not brought about any measurable actual improvement in the social coverage of prostitutes." Neither working conditions nor the ability to exit the profession had improved. Finally, there was "no solid proof to date" that the law had reduced crime.

Additionally, researchers in this paper (http://www.lse.ac.uk/geographyAndEnvironment/whosWho/profiles/neumayer/pdf/Article-for-World-Development-_prostitution_-anonymous-REVISED.pdf) found that:

The scale effect of legalizing prostitution leads to an expansion of the prostitution market and thus an increase in human trafficking, while the substitution effect reduces demand for trafficked prostitutes by favoring prostitutes who have legal residence in a country. Our quantitative empirical analysis for a cross-section of up to 150 countries shows that the scale effect dominates the substitution effect. On average, countries with legalized prostitution experience a larger degree of reported
human trafficking inflows. We have corroborated this quantitative evidence with three brief case studies of Sweden, Denmark, and Germany.

Or this article (http://www.assembly.coe.int/ASP/Doc/XrefViewPDF.asp?FileID=20559&Language=EN) from the Council of Europe:

Although they are distinct phenomena, trafficking in human beings and prostitution are closely linked. It is estimated that 84% of victims in Europe are trafficked to be forced into prostitution; similarly, victims of trafficking represent a large share of sex workers. The lack of precise and comparable data on prostitution and trafficking makes it difficult to assess with accuracy the impact that different regulations on prostitution may have on trafficking. However, considering the significant overlap between the two phenomena, the Assembly believes that legislation and policies on prostitution are indispensable anti-trafficking tools.

Prostitution is a blight and should be treated as such.

[stevenleser]

147. As the snippet I posted noted. Legalization tends to increase inflows of trafficking

What you should be careful of asserting, because it has not been proven, is that it tends to increase human trafficking. It only says that it tends to increase trafficking inflows to the country that has legalized. What it may mean is that some people who would be trafficked anyway were steered to that country instead of others. The probability of an inflow increase, btw, is not particularly high. I believe the number noted is about 13%.

It also says that criminalization significantly increases the misery of people currently in the industry in that country.

What is being presented by some as a study that justifies keeping it illegal really suggests the opposite.

[Squinch]

155. Your assertion that the article says that the probability of inflow is 13% is wrong.

The study found that legalization increased trafficking, period. The increase of trafficking was experienced in countries with all kinds of governments, but there was 13% probability that it would be higher still in those countries governed by a democratic system as opposed to some other form of government. The 13% was the higher incidence of inflow into democratically governed countries. Further, the study found that the increase in trafficking was greatest in those countries which were the wealthiest. Which means that, as a wealthy democracy, increases in trafficking in the US would be significant.

You seem to think that the hardships faced by sex workers where prostitution is criminalized are commensurate with the hardships of trafficked children, women and men. They are not commensurate. Trafficking is a form of slavery. Criminalized prostitution is not.

We can either legalize or not legalize. That means we must choose one of these systems. So we must either choose a system like the one we have now, in which prostitution is illegal and prostitutes are sometimes arrested and are sometimes preyed on by pimps and middle men. Or we can choose to legalize, in which the prostitutes are still preyed on by pimps and middle men, but which system also leads to people being enslaved and used up in the worst ways imaginable.

[stevenleser]

156. I stand corrected on that minor point. But the article does not support ANY of your points.

The article is very careful to specify that legalization increases INFLOW of trafficking, not trafficking. That is a critical difference because it means your entire point about

"You seem to think that the hardships faced by sex workers where prostitution is criminalized are commensurate with the hardships of trafficked children, women and men."

is unsupported by the article. The article DOES NOT SAY that legalization increases human trafficking. The article in no way attempts to suggest that the same people that were now trafficked to the country that has legalized would not otherwise be trafficked elsewhere.

Without that, your point falls down and since that's the only point you present from the article as supporting you, you have nothing.

The only point we do know for sure that impacts on whether legalization or criminalization is more humane is that the lives of sex workers is better under legalization.

[Squinch]

157. Oh, jeez, steven, that's pretty lame. So if you open up a huge new market for trafficked people

in the US, and you do it knowing you are increasing the numbers of trafficked people in the US, you aren't increasing the overall numbers of trafficked people in the world? You keep telling yourself that.

And yes, the article DOES say that legalization increases the trafficking in those countries in which the legalization occurred. So what are you saying? You are A OK with a large trafficking increase in the US, because, hey, it was going to happen somewhere else anyway? That's kind of sick.

You are, I'm sure, going to need to go on making silly points on this. So have fun with that. I don't see much benefit to continuing this conversation.

[stevenleser]

158. It's not lame, it's the study you posted. They were very careful to state it that way for a reason

If you are posting a study to imply that a properly done study bolsters your point, and I appreciate that aspect of it, I like facts, you have to accept the limitations of that study that the folks who did the study are clearly indicating by their language.

They are not saying that legalization increases human trafficking.

[BainsBane]

127. That would require giving a shit

about anyone but the men who buy sex. Isn't going to happen. This is the epitome of the "me" ethos, all that matters is a man's desire to buy sex. This is about the exhalation of self above the rest of the human race--power and privilege of the few and the hell with the consequences. Those enslaved girls and children do not factor in their thinking because they do not care. Children in inner cities are irrelevant. It's class, race, and gender exploitation at it's worse, and they've developed a self-righteous ideology to justify it: sex as the highest form of liberty, a liberty that belongs only to men of privilege and hinges on exploitation of the worst kind, resulting in slavery, rape, and death. They refuse to pay attention to either academic evidence or personal experiences because those lives simply do not matter. One came out and told me point blank that my experience as a child being preyed upon by Johns who came to find prostitutes was irrelevant. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025346527
The poor exist for the privileged to use, abuse, and throw away. The dogma of neoliberal capitalism trumps human rights.

I will also note that not a one would agree to put prostitution in their own neighborhoods. It had to go in poor neighborhoods like mine. We were accustomed to economic blight and sexual predation. What difference would legalization make anyway? Only not in their communities, not next to their schools. It is entirely about their privilege and ability to exploit the poor at will, and we are supposed to take it because of their "liberty." Well I don't give a shit about the privileged man's liberty that comes at the cost of massive exploitation of persons and communities. I care about the rights of the rest of the human race to live in dignity, without poor children being preyed upon, raped, and sold into slavery.

[Squinch]

153. Absolutely. And that's not going to happen. As you say, "not in my back yard" and "not

my daughter" but "I need my porn for Liberty and Women's Rights! Argle bargle!!!"

They give a shit about their jack-off accessories. That's about it. And frankly, that's about how they look at these women: appliances and accessories.

[cui bono]

174. Thanks for posting that!

[Warren DeMontague]

58. I heard iceland was going to ban all internet porn, and some people got VERY excited!

Funny, though, i haven't heard much about it since then.

[nomorenomore08]

258. Yeah, that was an overreach, and a rather foolish one.

Whatever my objections to certain content, I don't think censorship is the answer by a long shot.

[Warren DeMontague]

292. It was more like a trial balloon

And it went over with a resounding pfffffffffffffffffffffffffft.

[hunter]

59. Maybe not in your utopia...

... but in this U.S.A. society it often goes horribly wrong.

[ecstatic]

62. lol. nt.

[whatchamacallit]

63. I'm guessing Torture Porn is your thing

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5339866

[dionysus]

89. ! he walked right into that one...

[cui bono]

171. If Obama does it.

[Brigid]

64. Be that as it may . . .

I claim my right to avoid either one.

[MineralMan]

69. Feh! Try working as a prostitute youself, and

then get back to us. Thanks.

[davidpdx]

118. They pay me to keep my cloths on

[CBGLuthier]

141. Kind of a funny picture considering he was an addict and a prostitute walked over his body

to leave him dying on the floor.

Bravo.

[hifiguy]

72. Agreed.

There basic problem with crusaders against "sin" be they on the right or on the left. They ignore everything that we know about human nature as it has been shown to be for umpteen millennia. People like sex, they like altering their consciousnesses. In other words, they're normal parts of the underwiring of the pleasure centers of the human brain. Those things do not have to be programmed into the brain like say, religulous stupidity or racism.

We are a non-perfectible species. The bugs of "sin" people complain about are part and parcel of the way homo sapiens is wired.

Run far and fast from anyone who tells you that "sins" based in the deepest recesses of human consciousness can be stamped out.

[cui bono]

231. Strawman argument.

No one here has said it's a "sin".

It's about how you treat another human being, how you regard an entire gender. It's about respect and compassion towards the other gender.

[DanTex]

82. How do you feel about the organ trade? Just consenting adults?

After all, hey, it's my kidney, if I want to sell it, how is that your business?

How about the minimum wage. If I agree to work for 50 cents an hour, who are you to barge in with your "living wage" moralizing?

[Squinch]

180. Yes. After all, people who donate their organs do it because they like to meet people. They're

just outgoing that way. So I wish all these people would quit being such prudes and hand me a scalpel.

(I have actually argued with people here who say that most prostitutes are in it because they like sex and meeting people. They also seem to believe that most prostitutes are working their way through college. No kidding. I guess people can convince themselves of anything.)

[Capt. Obvious]

83. On porn and prostitution: I trust Larry Flynt

[redqueen]

90. Yep. and when it comes to the safety of tobacco, I trust the RJ Reynolds company. nt

[redqueen]

134. Regarding Flynt:

From an August 3rd, 2004 Democracy Now interview Amy Goodman did with Larry Flynt

AMY GOODMAN: What about the criticism, Larry Flynt, that you have profited for so many years off of the exploitation and degradation of women, like showing a woman in a meat grinder. Your response to that?

LARRY FLYNT: Well, most of the criticism comes from the radical feminist movement, who really only claim to fame is to urge a bunch of ugly women to march behind. Other than that, I haven't received criticism.

Larry Flynt says most of the criticism against his magazine comes from the radical feminist movement. We ask: Where have you been?

http://www.hustlingtheleft.com

Hustler’s denigrating S.E. Cupp “satire”
Larry Flynt hides behind free speech to degrade a conservative
...

Way to seize the moment, Cupp — except that liberals don’t like fake blow-job putdowns either

...

http://www.salon.com/2012/05/24/hustlers_denigrating_s_e_cupp_satire/

Not sure if that's the same image that was posted here, and that so many here defended, but... yeah.



And here he comments on porn:

“I wouldn’t advise them to do it. There’s a difference between a girl that makes a movie and a girl that poses for a magazine. Most of the girls that pose for the magazine aren’t doing it for the money; they’ve got great bodies, and they’re doing it for posterity’s sake. But where the money is to be made is if they move into films, and I wouldn’t advise that. You get used up very quickly: Within three or four months, the average girl will just get used up. It just takes your soul, you know? It just takes your soul.”


Just a few tidbits to back up sea's points which were hidden

[BainsBane]

93. Nothing wrong unless you count

Human trafficking, slavery, child rape, preying on children, harassment, battery, murder, STDs, economic blight, drug addiction, suicide, and death. Add to that neoliberalism, the capitalist commodification of human bodies.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1986065


Besides that, totally cool. It's really cool for men with money, not so cool for everyone else, but then that's the point, isn't it?

[Prophet 451]

95. Your link seems to be bad

Returns a 503 error for me.

[BainsBane]

96. It works for me

The problem must be on your end. The link is to the Social Science Research Network, to a paper on the effects of legalizing prostitution on the spread of human trafficking.

It did just now load quite slowly for me, so perhaps your browser timed out?

[Prophet 451]

98. You were right, apologies

I tried it in Chrome and it took a while but loaded up.

[BainsBane]

104. The paper is open access

so you can download it for free.

[Prophet 451]

107. Got it, thanks

At 48 pages, I'll read it later.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

112. It worked for me =

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1986065

World Development, 41 (1), 2013, pp. 67-82
Abstract:
This paper investigates the impact of legalized prostitution on human trafficking inflows. According to economic theory, there are two opposing effects of unknown magnitude. The scale effect of legalized prostitution leads to an expansion of the prostitution market, increasing human trafficking, while the substitution effect reduces demand for trafficked women as legal prostitutes are favored over trafficked ones. Our empirical analysis for a cross-section of up to 150 countries shows that the scale effect dominates the substitution effect. On average, countries where prostitution is legal experience larger reported human trafficking inflows.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 48
Keywords: human trafficking, prostitution, human rights, globalization

JEL Classification: O15, F22, K42
Accepted Paper Series

1. INTRODUCTION
Much recent scholarly attention has focused on the effect of globalization on human rights
(Bjørnskov, 2008; de Soysa & Vadlamannati, 2011) and women’s rights in particular (Cho,
2011; Potrafke & Ursprung, 2012). Yet, one important, and largely neglected, aspect of
globalization with direct human rights implications is the increased trafficking of human
beings (Cho and Vadlamannati, 2012; Potrafke, 2011), one of the dark sides of globalization.
Similarly, globalization scholars with their emphasis on the apparent loss of national
sovereignty often neglect the impact that domestic policies crafted at the country level can
still exert on aspects of globalization. This article analyzes how one important domestic
policy choice – the legal status of prostitution – affects the incidence of human trafficking
inflows to countries.
Most victims of international human trafficking are women and girls. The vast
majority end up being sexually exploited through prostitution (United Nations Office of
Drugs and Crime (UNODC), 2006). Many authors therefore believe that trafficking is caused
by prostitution and combating prostitution with the force of the law would reduce trafficking
(Outshoorn, 2005). For example, Hughes (2000) maintains that “evidence seems to show that
legalized sex industries actually result in increased trafficking to meet the demand for women
to be used in the legal sex industries” (p. 651). Farley (2009) suggests that “wherever
prostitution is legalized, trafficking to sex industry marketplaces in that region increases” (p.
313).1 In its Trafficking in Persons report, the U.S. State Department (2007) states as the
official U.S. Government position “that prostitution is inherently harmful and dehumanizing
and fuels trafficking in persons” (p. 27). The idea that combating human trafficking requires
combating prostitution is, in fact, anything but new. As Outshoorn (2005, p. 142) points out,
the UN International Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons from 1949 had>snip

[brooklynite]

108. I assume anyone who opposes legalizing prostitution also favors banning construction?

I mean, sure there are some people who are well paid and enjoy the work, but there are also day laborers who don't have any other job opportunities, and are underpaid and abused, so we should make it illegal for everyone, right?

[BainsBane]

114. Read the paper linked above

and read this. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025346527
I'm not interested in theoretical discussions about capitalist utopias. You explain to me why the life of myself, children who are rapped and harassed in red light areas, and the enslaved are worth less that a man's prurient sexual desire, then we can have an honest conversation.

If you think a constructions site is anything like a red light area, you have no idea of what you are talking about. You engage in theoretical musings with complete disregard for the lives of people who are surrounded by the sex industry.

Prostitution laws are local. You don't have to impose the predation and ensuing economic blight back on our neighborhoods. You can put the prostitution where the Johns are--in middle- and upper-middle class neighborhoods --so your children can grow up being preyed up on instead of poor kids for a change. Not a single person who favors legalization wants it near them. Not one would agree to that. They want it in the poor neighborhoods where those they consider unworthy of consideration should just get used to sexual predators and economic blight. The predators children should be safe, while ours are harassed, raped, and sold into slavery. It shows complete contempt for anything other than the desires of men of means. Take your neoliberal agenda somewhere else. Turn your own communities into hell holes and leave the poor alone.

[Prophet 451]

94. In principle, I agree with you

In principle, there is nothing wrong with either activity. Both are pretty much as old as civilization and have existed in virtually all cultures in some form. But I would suggest that what we're talking about here is how we should regulate both activities when done for a profit, whether we should ban every exhibitionist with a webcam or regulate the production of commercial porn to include rubbers, STD checks, profit sharing (pretty much everyone in porn is underpaid) and so on.

Likewise, with prostitution, the question is how we regulate it to minimize or (preferably) eliminate abuses like trafficking, slavery and pimping. To my admittedly inexpert eye, the scenario where prostitutes had to be licensed and work out of licensed brothels seemed to get it right.

[nomorenomore08]

260. Thank you for at least giving the issue some thought.

As opposed to the knee-jerk "WHY DO YOU HATE FREEDOM???" bullshit.

[Logical]

97. Well, you are ok with touture also! nt

[Kali]

102. blah blah blah

"new" DUer stirs some shit. color me shocked. not.

[Rex]

139. Yeah SSDD.

This one is trying very hard to be obvious imo.

[Squinch]

154. It is really very odd how he is parading his motives.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

110. I was taught that when taking True/False tests that an absolute statement will usually be a False

statement. So, just playing the odds here I am going with a False premise. I really do not care one way or the other if it is legalized or not but, your original statement is false just on the face of it therefore anything following it is pretty well null and void.

Imo. Your reasoning is not really sound about Why you want to see it legalized.

That you want to see it legalized is fine by me. You are entitled to your opinion and I hope you do everything you legally can to see that you get your wish.

[AuntPatsy]

111. Not so cut and dry considering the easy access children have to it, frankly I do

Believe having this easy access for young impressionable minds does not bold well for the need to respect each other being top priority for our youth....

I agree what we as adults do in private is our business and no one else's but to ignore what is happening to our young ones easy impressionable minds does not bold well for the soon to be adults they will be.

[JackRiddler]

117. Nothing wrong?

How about you just stick to the idea that porn should be legal and unregulated (except for "thrust" or where it is pushed) and prostitution should be decriminalized and regulated? Because I agree with both propositions and these strategies have proven to work well in practice where they have been tried (depending on form, etc.).

But "nothing wrong"? Please. Far too simple a view.

[Squinch]

182. Decriminalization does not work well in practice where it has been tried.

Last edited Fri Aug 8, 2014, 10:36 PM - Edit history (1)

http://journalistsresource.org/studies/international/human-rights/legalized-prostitution-human-trafficking-inflows#

Or at least it hasn't worked well in the 116 countries in this study. You may know of another 116 countries where it leads to prostitution utopia.

[JackRiddler]

184. Thanks for this article on the effects of legalizing prostitution.

I do not support prostitution as an industry or ever associate it with "utopia. I do however ask (as with drugs) what the right policy is for dealing with it.

Your link is not a study on legalizing prostitution per se. It is a study of the effects of legalization on human trafficking, and finds that such trafficking appears to increase to countries that have legalized, due to a larger market. Let's assume this is so, though such data can be questioned. (Do all countries report equally well on human trafficking, do they have the same definitions, have reporting standards been the same throughout, etc.)

Now note, from your link:

"Democracies have a higher probability of increased human-trafficking inflows than non-democratic countries. There is a 13.4% higher probability of receiving higher inflows in a democratic country than otherwise."

This is not an argument against democracy, right?

Furthermore, the article concludes as follows:

While trafficking inflows may be lower where prostitution is criminalized, there may be severe repercussions for those working in the industry. For example, criminalizing prostitution penalizes sex workers rather than the people who earn most of the profits (pimps and traffickers).

“The likely negative consequences of legalised prostitution on a country’s inflows of human trafficking might be seen to support those who argue in favour of banning prostitution, thereby reducing the flows of trafficking,” the researchers state. “However, such a line of argumentation overlooks potential benefits that the legalisation of prostitution might have on those employed in the industry. Working conditions could be substantially improved for prostitutes — at least those legally employed — if prostitution is legalised. Prohibiting prostitution also raises tricky ‘freedom of choice’ issues concerning both the potential suppliers and clients of prostitution services.”

Human trafficking must be addressed as its own evil. (Here a distinction needs to be made between forced trafficking and undocumented immigration; the latter is often called "trafficking" falsely.) Ending human trafficking doesn't require punishing prostitutes -- which is exactly what happens with criminalization, even if it's the johns who are arrested. As the article you are using also suggests.

Why aren't we thinking in terms of economic justice and opportunity and development everywhere in the world, rather than forefronting the solution of criminalizing the poor? (Criminalization will rarely make a difference to the rich either way, of course.)

[Squinch]

209. All very nice. But when you legalize, trafficking increases. You can think in whatever terms you

like, but when you legalize, trafficking increases.

Spin it in the rinse cycle all you want, but when you legalize, trafficking increases. When you argue in support of legalization, you argue in support of increasing trafficking.

[JackRiddler]

217. When you criminalize, suffering increases.

Even the article you link says so, and it does not advocate criminalization of prostitution. Trafficking is the problem that needs to be addressed.

Your logic here:

When you have democracy, according to the article you cite, trafficking increases. If you argue in support of democracy, you argue in support of increasing trafficking.

[Squinch]

220. When you criminalize, suffering does not increase in the same way that it does when you legalize.

We need to pick one system or the other. In one, prostitutes can be arrested and can be exploited by middlemen. In the other, people are enslaved and used up until they are dead. Oh, and they are also exploited by the middlemen. So you choose one of these two outcomes. Which do you choose?

And why is everyone misreading that paragraph about democracy? You have read it wrong. It is not saying that trafficking only increases in democratic countries. It is saying that trafficking increases in ALL countries where legalization occurs. It is saying that it increases MORE in those countries with democratic governments, and MORE in those countries which are wealthy. So if you argue for legalization in the US, you are arguing for significant increases in trafficking.

[JackRiddler]

222. Trafficking is not just about prostitution.

Trafficking is an enormous and multifarious problem with underlying economic causes. As long as the source countries of migrants are kept down, people will both want and be forced to cross the borders. Your "solution" to trafficking does not actually address the problem, but it does punish those forced into (or choosing, under the terrible circumstances) the prostitution trade. You should be advocating for economic justice, an end to the naked exploitation of these nations, rights for refugees and migrants, rather than thinking there is a partial solution in increasing the suffering of prostitutes. As morally satisfying as you may think that would be...

[Squinch]

223. "You should be advocating for economic justice." And in the meantime, while we wait for economic

justice to appear for the first time in human history, you appear to be willing to increase the number of people who live the misery and slavery of human trafficking.

If you don't like the idea of trafficking, YOU should not be advocating for the legalization of prostitution because legalization of prostitution increases human trafficking.

Again, as I said before, you can spin it and run away from it all you want, but legalization of prostitution increases human trafficking.

And I notice that you avoided my question. Right now, while we are advocating for economic justice (which has really never existed despite many people advocating for it through the eras), before that economic justice shows up, we have two choices: legalize and increase the number of trafficked people significantly, or not. That, right now, is our choice, and you are avoiding answering which you would choose.

[JackRiddler]

224. I see you have your steady view.

It's been an interesting discussion.

[Squinch]

225. "A steady view" is one way to describe the act of facing the fact that legalization of prostitution

increases human trafficking.

And you still didn't answer the question of whether you would choose to legalize, knowing that it increases human trafficking, or not.

[JackRiddler]

234. Your question is loaded.

[Squinch]

235. The reality of the situation is loaded. As you can see, there is really only one choice.

[Zorra]

119. Your concerns are noted.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

125. ... lol ...

[R B Garr]

129. LOL, I was thinking the same thing.

But I probably would have gone with a Ding Dong. Tasty!

Sugar
Vegetable and/or Animal Shortening (contains one or more of Soybean, Cottonbean, Canola, Coconut, Palm, Kernel, Oil, Beef Fat)
Enriched Wheat Flour (Flour, Ferrous Sulfate (Iron),B Vitamin (niacin, Thiamine, Mononitrate (B1), Riboflavin (B2), Folic Acid)
Water
Whole Eggs
Cocoa Processed with Alkali
Corn Syrup
Invert Sugar
Whey
Maltodextrin
Salt
Mono and Diglycerides
Soy Lecithin
Polysorbate 60
Nonfat Milk
Leavening (Baking Soda, Sodium Acid Pyrophosphate, Monocalcium Phosphate)
Egg Yolks
Calcium Caseinate
Potassium Carbonate
Cornstarch
Artificial Flavors
Wheat Gluten
Sodium Caseinate
Sorbic Acid (to Retain Freshness)

[MADem]

126. There's nothing wrong with burping and farting, either.

That said, I can think of better subjects than those to discuss on a political message board. I'm certainly not saying you can't discuss the OP topics, or the burping/farting, either, but I hold out little hope for reasoned discourse on the subject matter.

I do think that some people have a desire for drama, and that's why these topics come up over and over again. Divisive topics are bound to bring posters to the thread, like honey to the bee. Then the inevitable back-and-forth begins, which is, to my mind, an amusement that is cheaper than a movie ticket and can occupy one almost as long.

The people who like it, like it--and the people who don't, don't. And there will be no swaying of viewpoints--just excoriation and exhortation until exhaustion!

There's not going to be any meeting of the minds, it's a lot like Atheists v. Faithful, or Pit Bulls v. Kill All The Pitbulls, or Smoking v. Outlaw Tobacco--a grinding, excruciating cage-match duel that has no end, no answers, and nothing but hurt feelings as the threads peter out.

Let the train wreck begin, I suppose...!

[GeorgeGist]

130. Torture too ...

If Obama approves?

[LanternWaste]

137. It's a tough old world when people hold opinions different than yours

It's a tough old world when people hold opinions different than yours. I too used to call opposing views "draconian", "anti-woman", "forcing morality", etc, too. But third grade was a long time ago, and I'm compelled to avoid the petulant, self-serving melodramatic pretense of fictional oppression.

But yeah... I completely understand wanting to believe that opinions based on both objective academic reviews and experience is simply "insane".

[Rex]

138. You're trying too hard.

[Iris]

181. +1

[Orsino]

142. When those industries go unregulated, there sure as fuck is.

Let's get over our giggling and right-wing just-say-no shaming, and protect sex workers and consumers.

I think then we might be able to prove that there's nothing wrong with porn and prostitution. Until then, we're opining blind.

[nomorenomore08]

261. +1000

[marshall]

152. Morality is always relative

What is wrong to one person is acceptable to another. Society as a whole makes its collective judgement, and that judgement often changes over time.

[Iron Man]

159. I support both as well.

As long as they're regulated, safe, taxed, and consenting, who cares?

[cui bono]

173. Have you seriously not heard the stories about GIRLS being abducted and forced into prostitution?

We're talking about preteen GIRLS too, held in captivity and forced allow many men fuck them per day. Where did they make a choice to become a prostitute? You should read more about a subject before pontificating on it. Especially in such a pompous manner.

As to porn, do you think every woman in porn chooses to do that? Chooses to portray women as oppressed and disrespected? Chooses to have sex in front of people for anyone to look at?

As to your last sentence, what a crock of shit. You attempt to win your argument by making a false claim. That's such a cowardly way to have a "discussion". So is refusing to answer someone's question about what responsible torture is after you advocate torture as long as Obama has decided it needs to be done.

Watch this if you want to get a deeper understanding of porn:

[Warren DeMontague]

177. STOP! STOP LOOOOKING AT NAKED PEOPLE HAVING SEX! STOP IT STOP IT STOPPP IT AEEEEEEE

[Violet_Crumble]

206. There's no need to read the rest of the thread. That clip says everything that needs to be said!

Porn and WoW. My daughter's bf who heard me laughing as I watched it now thinks I'm an imbecile because I'd never seen it before...

[Warren DeMontague]

208. Heh.

Yeah, that's pretty classic- I can't remember when I first saw it, but it's been around for a long time.

[historylovr]

185. Morality lessons from a torture apologist?

Now I've seen everything.

[YoungDemCA]

187. "such draconian, anti-women views"

No, I'm not laughing with you.

[redgreenandblue]

195. Even if both were completely free of exploitation, some would still be opposed to it.

Sometimes people disguise their personal tastes as a morality based stance.

[Warren DeMontague]

198. Yeah. One only look at what acts are considered exploitative and degrading to see that.

And that's not to say all porn, for instance, is great, or that none of it is exploitative or degrading.

However, when people feel the need to cook up ridiculous statistics like "87% of porn contains abuse", one can dig into it and find that they have defined, for instance, the insertion of something -say, a body part- into another person's mouth, as abuse.

Could it be abuse? Sure. But it could also be what is known in the vernacular as Fellatio.


So lots of porn contains images of blowjobs? Wow. That is some SHOCKING news, right there.

[Squinch]

221. How would you know? Have we ever approached a condition where either was free of exploitation?

If so, I missed that.

[YarnAddict]

226. Ted Bundy

once said that porn creates serial killers.

Just throwing it out there. No time to track down a citation.

[Prophet 451]

263. Ted Bundy said a lot of things

Generally, it's a good idea to not believe serial killers. Bundy, like most killers, would tell you it was caused by having waffles on Friday if it gave him a way to shift his guilt onto something else.

[Warren DeMontague]

286. right, a liar and a sociopath.

but sure, he was telling the truth that one time. Seems legit.

[War Horse]

228. Nothing wrong with prostitution?

My jaw just dropped. Sure, 000.1 percent might be involved in it voluntarily, but...

As for porn... Nothing wrong with porn per se. But there's plenty wrong with the way a lot of it is presented.

[hedgehog]

230. There's nothing wrong with prostitution - why, wealthy women with all sorts of opportunities

and wonderful jobs are just as welcome to participate as poor women who want to get out of waitressing for poverty wages.

[rickford66]

236. When I see an old fat rich guy with a knockout babe ...

I assume it's true love. Also, say I decide to make movies and I advertise for investors and it's a porn movie and I also hire the investors as actors and since the movie is too long their scenes end up on the cutting room floor. Both legal prostitution. Just my rambling thoughts.

[Boom Sound 416]

238. Shocker. A porn thread in GD goes 250 posts

[Warren DeMontague]

287. 300? How about 325, 325 350 okay. Can we get 400, 450 450, 475...

[Kurska]

256. Legal, regulated, safe and taxed.

Anything else is puritanical dreck.

End of discussion .

[nomorenomore08]

262. It's. just. not. that. simple.

I don't claim to have all the answers, but in the actual, non-utopian society we live in, there's a lot wrong with how unbridled capitalism - not just the sex industry, but other industries as well - allows vulnerable people to be exploited at will.

[Warren DeMontague]

280. I'm old fashioned, and I think the economic/exploitation problems across the board would be best

addressed by things like a livable minimum wage, a solid social safety net... FDR new deal type stuff.

It's not about too much freedom, it's about people at the bottom not having enough options. When people don't have to hold onto shitty jobs they hate just to keep health coverage for their families, when they know they can make a fair day's wage for a fair day's work, and yes when we get rid of archaic laws that try to control the behavior of consenting adults vis a vis their own bodies- they are MORE free to make their own decisions- and sometimes those decisions are things that piss other people off, whether that's to bake cakes for gay weddings, fuck in front of a camera, or open a legal marijuana store in a state where it's legal.

The people who get pissed off about "freedumb" and folks doing things they don't like, are on the wrong track IMHO.

[nomorenomore08]

281. "...it's about people at the bottom not having enough options."

Absolutely. I wholeheartedly agree with this.

"...a livable minimum wage, a solid social safety net... FDR new deal type stuff."

This too. It seems so simple and obvious, and yet...

[Warren DeMontague]

282. To be honest, though, some of these things have gone from pipe dreams to actual proposals

in recent years, at least in some places- like Seattle.

I do think some things have moved in a positive direction. The idea of a livable minimum wage is not the sort of crazy-talk of of left field unicorn fart that some people used to treat it as.

[bigwillq]

294. K and R

I agree.