Societies that ban Porn treat women really well

[cthulu2016]

Last edited Wed Jun 20, 2012, 01:11 AM - Edit history (1)

Discuss...

________________

The OP is, of course, a late-night jest. The opposite is true, as everyone knows.

[seabeyond]

1. Denmark and Norway both banned sexual objectification in ads

Denmark and Norway both banned sexual objectification in ads, but make an exception for products or services for which a sexy body is somehow related (e.g. for a fitness center I bet they'd allow it, but not for cars, hamburgers, website hosting, candy, etc.)

[whathehell]

17. A smart and civilized move...Good on them.

although I suspect many of the supposedly "progressive" boys here

won't be quick champion THIS sort of social evolution.

[clang1]

33. A smart and civilized move...Good on them.

Loool

[datasuspect]

41. some of the best porn comes from denmark and norway

[obamanut2012]

49. They haven't banned porn

[2ndAmForComputers]

59. I think your post doesn't have enough momentum to break through the reality distortion field.

Not even your post and datasuspect's combined.

[DURHAM D]

2. Whoopee - another porn thread.

[quinnox]

4. lol

[whathehell]

12. Yay !

If you no like, you go away!

[UnrepentantLiberal]

81. Yee Haw!

[Rex]

3. Is that true?

.

[cthulu2016]

6. Of course not!

The OP is a late-night joke.

Access to porn correlates highly with women's rights around the world, and everyone knows it. Reproductive choice, relatively equal pay, voting, divorce... not wearing a burka...

[Fawke Em]

10. Not rape and assault porn. No.

You might have an argument for the old 70s-style erotic (re: NOT "I have power over you" porn) porn, but the stuff that's out there now is assault.

Snuff films, for example, have always been illegal, for obvious reasons.

[reorg]

26. that's a myth, I believe

I don't buy it that "snuff films" even exist (I mean outside of those that document military slaughters and have found their way onto the Internet). The myth that they do is as old as porn. Well, almost, but I remember well the excited reviews of one such alleged snuff movie in the early eighties which was shown in regular theaters. All bullshit, sick fantasies, "see, this is how it will end"!!!

There is essentially no difference between motives of "70s-style" porn and what is out there today. Vanessa del Rio prides herself of being a pioneer (oh, and SHE had the power, mind you--at least that was the projected image), and indeed may have been. One of a kind in the seventies, but what she did is today pretty much standard for American porn, I believe.

Repugnant, violent porn has always existed, and there have always been documented cases of abuse, women who were considered easy prey by colleagues just because they starred in so-called erotic films, or who didn't want to actually get physical and were only "convinced" at the last minute that this was necessary and so forth.

The main difference is that we see mass production today, to an extent that it starts to become financially unattractive for more and more actors. At least if we are to believe the British journalist who recently made that BBC documentary about today's porn stars' problems. At the same time, there may be just more and more actors ... or they do it like others drive a taxi, on weekends, for two or three years. If anything, this will make it better, not worse, I believe.

[cthulu2016]

28. The "snuff" hoax should have been a credibility-ender for many

But I don't think this stuff is really about gaining credibility.

There is attention to be gotten from false accusations. The people pushing the "snuff" hoax surely knew they were lying, but they same some benefit in convincing the hapless that their town was screening a film where a rubber dummy...er, sorry, where a real woman was killed.

What does one gain from convincing people of such a thing?

I dunno. Maybe it's just that fun.

[cthulu2016]

27. If you're just going to make stuff up

then there's no real need for replies.

Snuff films are not illegal.

Murdering people is, however, illegal.

And accepting money as a performer to pretend to be raped by another performer who is pretending to rape you is not rape.

Having know women who have been raped I find no amusement in your attempt to trivialize rape by including consensual activities as rape.

[Zalatix]

25. Are you saying porn is part of the whole freedom of choice thing?

Naw, it couldn't be!

[4th law of robotics]

53. Think of the places that have a very regressive view of nudity/sex/porn

Like Saudi Arabia.

[sadbear]

5. Do any societies actually ban porn?

It is my understanding that it's censored in Saudi Arabia, though.

[JonLP24]

58. I don't know the difference

between ban & censored in this context but in SA you're not allowed to possess porn. You also aren't allowed to in Kuwait & Iraq(last I knew). Those are the only countries I know for sure.

[metalbot]

61. Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore...

All ban porn (though it is widely available on the black market).

[Fawke Em]

7. No one wants to ban porn; however, many feminists

object to the treatment of women in SOME of these films.

Look... child porn is illegal because having sex with a minor is also illegal. Why do we allow rape porn (rape is illegal), assault porn (assault is illegal), porn that advertises that a whole gang of men are going to fuck a woman so hard she has to wear a colostomy bag after it's over (I'm sure that's aggravated assault), etc?

Many women aren't against porn that doesn't harm the woman (or gay man) involved in the production. We just object to the types of porn that turns women into nothing but a cum receptacle - an object that has no feelings, emotions or life-worth (when she's not being used as a cum receptacle).

[EOTE]

39. This really isn't very hard to understand.

Let me try to break it down to you. Child porn is illegal because it's illegal to have sex with children and children obviously can't consent to something like that. Adult porn is not illegal because the performers are consenting adults. If "rape porn" is to be legal, the participants need to be consenting, as such, no real "rape" is documented. If it was, it would be illegal. Just as murder is illegal, it is NOT illegal to make a movie where people are murdered. I really wouldn't think this would be such a difficult issue for some, it's fairly simple common sense.

[hifiguy]

50. +1

Why is the difference between reality and something that is staged and performed by actors so hard to get through people's heads. There was a "rape scene" in "The Accused." Needless to say, Jodie Foster wasn't raped in that scene. IT WAS A MOVIE.

[4th law of robotics]

54. Because all those other things you mention are simulated

the actors are pretending.

Like saying "we don't allow murder, why do we allow movies to portray actors committing this crime?"

[quinnox]

8. The Taliban would agree with you

hehehe

[bluestateguy]

9. Refighting the DU porn wars of 2007 is NOT a good idea

and it will solve nothing either.

[Rex]

11. There was a Porn War in 2007?

Huh, where the hell was I...what was I doing!?! I always miss this stuff.

[GObamaGO]

13. A porn war 5 years ago

How come nobody told me???

[Dr. Strange]

44. What if they gave a porn war...

and nobody came?

[Javaman]

47. LOL!

[obamanut2012]

52. DUZY!!!

[whathehell]

119. What if they made porn

and nobody bought it?

[DURHAM D]

16. Who won?

[Warren DeMontague]

36. Pah. More like, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, late 2011

There may have been a break in 2008.

There's one way to stop it, and ONLY one way:




but it involves bringing up PETA, Smoking Bans, Breastfeeding or the Olive Garden.

[FSogol]

46. Who do I see about fitting pitbulls into the next schedule?

[GObamaGO]

48. LMAO

[FrodosPet]

66. Would showing porn at the Olive Garden...

Would showing porn at the Olive Garden make vegan food tastier for kids and pit bulls?

I believe in efficiency. Let's get it all out in the open at once.

[Warren DeMontague]

117. That has been tried-However, when the issues are muddled, people forget which side they're supposed

to be on, and things get messy.

[yardwork]

116. That's funny! You left out Indigo Children, though.

[4th law of robotics]

55. Begun the porn wars have . . .

Horniness is the path to porn. Horniness leads to arousal. Arousal leads to baitin'. Baitin' leads to suffering.

[backscatter712]

14. Ah, like Saudi Arabia!

They not only ban porn, but they've redefined any image of a woman that shows more than face hands and feet to be "pornography".

Yeah, they're real kind to women there...

[msongs]

15. ok then, afghanistan now we have liberated them nt

[Comrade Grumpy]

113. In 2005, I saw Afghan guys get all hot and bothered...

...by being able to watch music videos from India. They could see the women's bare arms. Hot stuff!

[whathehell]

20. No, like Denmark and Norway!

Yeah, they're EXACTLY like Saudi Arabia.

[backscatter712]

22. It goes to demonstrate the correlation between porn and violence against women...

Or shall we say, the lack of correlation.

[whathehell]

23. No, I don't think so..

Are you sure you're responding to the right post?

[EOTE]

67. Yes, very much so.

Countries which ban pornography have a piss poor record of civil rights for women. That is a fact. If a woman is to go to a country where porn is banned, she better be prepared to live as a third class citizen.

[cthulu2016]

24. Disingenuous isn't just a river in Egypt

The desperate goal-post move is noted.

Yes, Denmark, is an awesome example of a nation that outlaws porn.

[whathehell]

31. No, it's the sewer that runs from the vinyard of sour grapes, lol.

Sorry to knock the wind out of those awesome Saudi Arabia sails.

[EOTE]

40. Both Denmark and Norway have free and open access to pornography.

In fact, Denmark was the first country in the world to legalize pornography. So, ummm, you're really going to have to try much harder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_by_region

Denmark
Main article: Pornography in Denmark

A ban on pornographic literature was lifted in 1967. In 1969, Denmark became the first country in the world to legalize pornography.[11] People in Denmark have free access to pornography; it is sold in most convenience stores[citation needed], and is available for purchase or rental in practically every video store, including Blockbuster. Pornography including minors younger than 18 years is prohibited, even possession is illegal.

[shcrane71]

51. You don't understand what Whathehell is saying.

Go back to the top of the thread.

[EOTE]

57. I very well do.

She's saying that it's not just backward, women-hating countries like Saudi Arabia that censor porn, enlightened countries like Denmark and Norway do too. Only, that's not the case at all. It was mentioned that Norway and Denmark have banned objectification of women in advertising, that's great. However, Denmark and Norway both feature nudity regular in advertising. I'd much rather the U.S. go by the Dane and Norse models. And they both have very free and open access to pornography.

[whathehell]

63. I'm afraid you very well don't.

As I pointed out in the response to your post to me.

[EOTE]

65. You're more than welcome to actually SAY when you mean, rather than making vague allusions.

So is your point NOT that Norway and Denmark ban pornography? Or is it that you think that our advertisements (which has absolutely NOTHING to do with the OP) should be more like Denmark and Norway and feature nudity? I'm sure you'll think of a point any minute now.

[whathehell]

69. I have no idea what "vague allusions" you're referring to,

but your sarcastic, hostile tone does

suggest that you're looking for a fight,

something I couldn't be less interested in right now.

This being the case, I can only "welcome" you,

to take it elsewhere.

[EOTE]

70. You're interested enough to respond.

But once again, not interested enough to actually say something of merit. Again, if you want to actually participate in a discussion, you're more than welcome to. But generally, people tend to present facts and respond to them in discussions. If you'd like to discuss how you feel on the subject, that's fine too, but don't expect people to really give a damn unless you present something even approaching a fact. I'll be keeping this here, I won't be bullied out of the discussion, thanks.

[whathehell]

76. Whatever. In any case, it's clear you're far more interested than I am, and that being reality,

your obvious attempts to bait me won't work, as I don't

much care if you think I've "said anything of merit" or not.

"I'll be keeping this here, I won't be bullied out of the discussion, thanks"

Good luck with that, bro...Meanwhile, you do get props for your hilarious,

attempt to "re-frame" the dynamic as one of you being "bullied" out of

the discussion, rather than me being bullied into it!


Good try, dude, but as they say, "No cigar"

[EOTE]

80. Yet another brilliant post of immense substance!

Oh wait, I notice that yet again you've said absolutely nothing about Denmark and Norway, what your original, incredibly vapid point was supposed to be about. You are so incredibly bereft of any ideas, any way to contribute something intelligent, that you've completely derailed the conversation. And "Good try"? Yes, I suppose it was a good try of me to try and get you to actually explain your comment in the slightest, but I guess it was fairly foolish of me to expect you to contribute something worthwhile. So, I'll ask you again, will you even attempt to describe your comment regarding Denmark and Norway? Or is it entirely too much of me to expect that you actually have a point? You've been very good at throwing around snark and insults, but piss poor at making anything approaching an honest argument. And I fully expect you to regard that as a rhetorical question, I can certainly understand how you'd feel that, but it's a real one.

[whathehell]

102. Brilliance isn't generally perceived by mediocrity.

And as you amp up the insults and ad hominem attacks,

you only signal your desperation...Sorry, bro, but "no means no".

[EOTE]

104. I'll ask you once again, in all honesty...

what did you mean by your original comment? I'm giving you a chance to explain yourself, you're more than welcome to it. Or you can respond just as you have been. I'd expect any rational person to be able to decipher what you meant by your response to this. So... am I going to get an actual response? Or can I expect more smileys? I'm going to bet on a smiley or two, but maybe you'll surprise me.

[EOTE]

107. And your responses are quite hilarious.

You chide me for my insults while you call me mediocre. All the while you haven't even so much as ATTEMPTED to explain your original comments. But keep it going, people here are obviously able to see you are utterly talking out of your ass. Keep it up, bro.

[whathehell]

111. Glad you enjoyed them!

Cause you won't be getting anymore.

You see, you're now not only talking OUT your ass, you're now talking TO your ass!

[EOTE]

114. No more smilies and snark? Whatever will I do?

I guess I'll just have to engage with someone who's capable of intelligent debate. My loss.

[whathehell]

62. If you go back to the post to which I responded, you'll see I wasn't speaking of pornography here

So, ummm, maybe it's you who are "really going to try much harder".

[EOTE]

64. The post you responded to was #14, where the poster talks about Saudi Arabia banning pornography.

You then bring up Norway and Denmark, suggesting that they too ban pornography. They don't at all. If you were perhaps referring to the statement upthread about them banning the objectification of women in advertisement, that's a fairly flimsy argument as well as they both feature a fair amount of nudity in advertisements, which you won't see in the U.S. at all. So if you were trying to make an argument, it's an extremely foolish one, to say the least.

[apocalypsehow]

92. Neither Denmark nor Norway have banned porn in the slightest.

You're allowed your own opinion, but not your own facts. Get them straight before you post next time.

[EOTE]

98. She'll tell you that that's not the point.

At that time, you might be compelled to ask her what IS the point. Then you might either be ridiculed for not getting the point or you'll be told to reread the post because you don't understand it. You won't get anything approaching an honest discussion with this one, though.

[tabatha]

18. They found porn at OBL's house.

[L0oniX]

60. There was some "live" porn going on at the White House once upon a time.

[tabatha]

19. Apparently porn is widely available in Arab countries, even though it is banned.

[Incitatus]

21. Do you dare suggest that prohibition doesn't work?

[whathehell]

29. Hmm..Let's think about that for a moment..

Last edited Wed Jun 20, 2012, 02:45 AM - Edit history (1)

We do have, for all practical purposes, prohibitions that DO work,

or haven't you noticed the strong social pressure

to refrain, for instance, from using racial slurs, especially in public.

Michael Richardson was the last "known" person in the media to publicly use the

word "nigger" and he got his ass handed to him, and rightfully so.

We have virtually the same kind of taboos against

slurring other racial groups, and this, again

is a good thing, and something I don't hear ANYONE

complain about as "censorship" or a violation of their "right" to

degrade people on the basis of their "different" body color. Again, this is a good thing.

What I do NOT understand, then, is why these very same people think it's "okay"

to verbally demean people on the basis of their different body CONSTRUCTION, with slurs like

"bitch" "cunt", etc.

These are hate words, and if you hadn't noticed, they're all OVER today's porn.

So no, feminists aren't being "prudes", we're not objecting to depictions of

sex, per se....It's that ugly social "messaging" about us, our "sluttiness"

our "dirtiness", our complete dehumanization into "cum buckets"

...THAT is what we "object" to.

[LiberalLoner]

32. thank you. why do they keep ignoring that point?

[whathehell]

35. You're welcome and you ask an excellent question

for which I have no answer, unfortunately,

I suspect it's a mix of things...They don't want to see themselves

in a bad light, but at the same time don't want to "give up"

whatever psychological benefits arise from the "cache"

of being male in this world?

I don't know the answer...We should discuss it on one of the Feminist

forums.

[DLevine]

37. Well said. Exactly the point. n/t

[whathehell]

43. Thank you. n/t

[RainDog]

38. prohibition and social pressure are two different things

just for the record.

women aligned with the religious right to pass prohibition in the U.S.

that worked out really well.

crime increased, organized crime gained a foothold in the U.S., people drank as much as before, people got alcohol poisoning,

social pressure comes in the form of public information campaigns about problems with alcohol, or people creating videos that talk about the problems of photo shopping models so that they're no longer human - and providing that information, etc.

what you have done is to claim that anyone who does not support censorship therefore supports violence in porn, etc. but this is not the reality.

the problem is when someone makes false representations of others' pov, too.

[whathehell]

42. Yes. The thing is, I didn't introduce that concept into the discussion.

Last edited Wed Jun 20, 2012, 09:33 AM - Edit history (1)

I just reacted to it and demonstrated how social pressure could bring

about similar results, in an acceptable "bottom up" rather than "top down" way.

As to censorship, you might want to re-read the post,

as I never mention it nor "claim" anything about it.

"the problem is when someone makes false representations of others' pov, too"

Funny you should mention that, as that seems to be exactly

what you have done to me!

[RainDog]

94. Your post, #29 states

We do have, for all practical purposes, prohibitions that DO work,

I said social pressure and prohibition are two different things. I was trying to note the difference because they are very different.

[whathehell]

100. The key is "for all practical purposes"....Perhaps I should have put quote marks around

the word "prohibition" but I thought I had made myself clear.

[jeff47]

73. No racial slurs in public?

Haven't spent much time in the rural south, huh?

Or several other places outside the south.

[whathehell]

78. Any other hairs you'd like to split?

Try addressing the point.

[jeff47]

85. It's splitting hairs to point out your post is completely wrong?

Your thesis: People don't use racist terms in public anymore.

My point: Uh....yeah, they do. A lot. You appear to have spent most of your time in places where racism is uncommon, but there's plenty of places where all sorts of foul terms will be thrown about in public.

I'm happy you seem to live in a place where racism is very uncommon. But you should recognize that everywhere is not the same as where you live and the company you keep.

[whathehell]

105. Um, that's not what you did

and hitting on one example that may be geographically

qualified won't do it either, lol


In addition, do yourself a favor and look up the word "thesis"

because "people using racist terms in public"

wasn't mine...Buh bye.

[apocalypsehow]

93. This has got to be one of the most absurd false analogies I've ever seen spun on DU. n/t.

[whathehell]

101. Sure.

[flamingdem]

30. Cuba

Anti-porn and women's rights have improved tremendously over the last few decades.

[BOG PERSON]

68. same w/ the soviet union

the situation for women changed completely post-collapse, of course. which i take it to mean there is a strong connection b/w sexual exploitation and capitalism, and organized crime in particular.

[FSogol]

45. Locking. Please repost in the newest forum: General Discussion-Porn

[lame54]

74. the most crowded forum

[treestar]

56. Well we have the First Amendment, so we cannot ban it,

unless it actually depicts a crime.

Even so, it doesn't mean people have to like it, especially women. I can understand women who might feel threatened by it.

[whathehell]

118. ......

Not merely "threatened"...How 'bout "degraded" and "shat upon"?

As for the first amendment, it's funny how that's never called into

question when we talk about respect for OTHER groups.

[undeterred]

71. Societies that ban women treat porn really well

[StarryNight]

72. excellent logic you've got going there, and of course no on is calling for a ban

on porn, but the strawman is so much easier to knock down than the actual arguments against SOME KINDS of porn.

[4th law of robotics]

75. It certainly does test the theory that porn leads to dehumanizing women which leads to

mistreating them.

Those cultures that dehumanize women the most (both by custom and by the law) are among the first to restrict pornography.

[whathehell]

82. The most pertinent point, IMO, was the "countries that ban porn = Women as 3rd class citizens"

statement.

That's probably true..The problem is, at this point in time,

the countries that do NOT ban porn, treat them as Second Class citizens.

Yeah, sure, that's better than Third, but still not exactly ideal.

The fact is, most western industrialized countries have a better

record on human rights generally, but that doesn't refute the fact that there is no INHERENT

connection between "porn tolerance" and respect for women, in fact, I would argue the opposite,

the difference existing between first and third world countries is just a matter of degree.

What we see in porn-tolerant western societies represents a kind "half way" mark on the

evolutionary road of women's rights.

When women have FIRST class citizenship, there will be no tolerance for abusive porn,

and I think that working against female-negative pornography might

just bring about that day sooner.

[4th law of robotics]

83. However

people who don't support any restrictions on porn don't need to prove there is no correlation between porn and violence.

BUT, people who do want restrictions must prove such a correlation exists to be taken seriously.

At best, from their standpoint, all that can be proven is that no correlation exists. Maybe porn leads to societies that treat women better. Maybe (more likely) societies that already treat women better are more open about sex and pornography. Who knows. All that can be said conclusively is that no significant link exists between the accessibility of pornography and treatment of women.

And I take issue with your notion that women are second class citizens in first world democracies. That is not the case.

[whathehell]

89. Yes, I think we're all aware of that.

When it comes to social science, it's difficult to "prove" anything, and you probably know

that...That being as it may, there IS evidence that repeated exposure to "dehumanizing pornography"

results in diminished sensitivity to women in men and to two times the level in desire to rape,

among other things.

http://www.protectkids.com/effects/justharmlessfun.pdf

This is one link, but it does links to a number of other studies, including those

which allegedly do NOT indicate a negative correlation of porn to abuse of

and insensitivity to women.

In a broader sense, however, I'd have to ask if we really need to "prove" a link?

To men terrified of losing their "rights" to see women brutalized and humiliated, I'm sure we do, but
beyond that, I'm not so sure. After all, did we need "proof" that stereotypical "grinning and shuffling" images of African-Americans contributed to their social denigration?...No. Did we need "proof" that the "Frito Bandito" was injurious to the
image of Mexican-Americans?...No. Did we then need proof that the lisping, limp wristed portrayal of gay men was harmful? --again, No.

Those spoke for themselves, just as degrading images of women speak for themselves. If women, as a group, possessed the power, money and social status of men, those things wouldn't exist...At least not for "entertainment".
One thing IS worth noting in comparing the treatment of those minorities with that of women, though, and that is that all of the OTHER oppressed groups include men, although, that, I'm sure is "just a coincidence", lol

The obvious reluctance of men to empathize with the other half of humanity to the point of giving up this "last badge"
of superiority is, I believe, what is standing in the way...That, and the profit motive of the manufacturers, of course.

You "take issue" with the notion that women are second class citizens?....Interesting, if not surprising...Then again, you are NOT a woman, are you? Since that's the case, you'll have to forgive me if I don't take your opinion too seriously....It strikes me about
as valid as the opinions of white people in America who believe "racism doesn't exist anymore".

[4th law of robotics]

90. It's interesting

in the last half of your response you completely ignore my opinion because I'm a man so I can't know how women think about this subject.

Ok, but then you spend the first half telling me how men who watch porn think (terrified of losing rights, men cannot empathize with women, we enjoy watching women harmed, etc).

So either you're a hermaphrodite or you are being hypocritical here.

And your link is more of the same: well it seems likely that . . . we believe that . . . how else could this be but . . .

We seem to be looking at this from a different way. I am looking at it factually: can porn accessibility be linked to anything significant?

You are looking at it based on how you feel: how do I feel porn makes an impact? What do I personally think about.

I don't deny that you don't like it. I'm cool with that. Just don't translate that in to anything other than your personal opinion.

And we are not all aware of the need to post proof of a positive claim. I had a rather lengthy discussion with a person on this board who insisted that I disprove porn caused rape.

[whathehell]

97. Okay, I'm about done with you, but

I'll correct you on a few things first:

A. "in the last half of your response you completely ignore my opinion because I'm a man so I can't know how women think about this subject".

You still don't get it, in fact your wording, on its own, indicates that fact. To you it's a "subject" of which you have NO first hand experience...To me and and other WOMEN, it's LIFE.....It's not a question of "ignoring" your opinion, but, of necessity, it's going to be OUTWEIGHED by the opinion of women themselves. That REALLY can't be too hard to grasp, can it?....Example: When I, as a white person, first heard that native Americans were offended by certain sports names and mascots like "Chief Illini" and the "Washington Redskins", my first thought was "Gee..what's so bad about that?...That seems over-sensitive"?...My second thought was "But wait a minute..I'm NOT
a native American, so while I STILL may not fully understand, I'm going to let THEM have the last word on the subject,
since it is THEIR identity"....Get the connection?...Trust me, were I as clueless and ARROGANT as you appear to be, I'm sure I
would "tell" them how they should feel....Since I'm neither of those thing, I have the brains to refrain from doing so!


Yes, I AM looking at it on the basis of "how I feel", just as Black, Latinos and other minorities looked at debasing images of themselves and made their opinions known on the basis of how THEY felt....Would you be so totally "out of touch" with them as to to tell them
that THEIR feelings don't matter, because you're in possession of some superior "facts" relative to their position that THEY don't have?

When you acquire the brains and/or sensitivity to honestly answer that question, let me know..Until then,
I'll be wishing you 'good day'.

[4th law of robotics]

106. Er, you kinda ignored my point

Ok so let's say you are in possession of the sole source on information on how women feel about this subject and it is like your holocaust. Fine. Whatever.

But then you can't also go on and lecture me about how men feel as if you had some insight.

To use your example this would be like a native american tribe giving their opinion not just on how native americans are referenced but also witholding the right to tell white people when they are being offended as well.

Pick a gender and stick with it. You want to come at this issue as a woman? Fine. But then don't tell men what they are thinking at the same time.

Although I am glad you realized that this is entirely about your feelings on the subject. Not some much referenced but never explained societal harm. You don't like it because XYZ. Fine. No one ever denied you the right to not like it.

[whathehell]

108. Er, you kinda ignored mine as well.

Buh Bye.

[4th law of robotics]

109. Tschüss

I'll message you if I ever need someone to womansplain how men think to me.

[EOTE]

110. Well, in his defense...

You really haven't made any of note.

[whathehell]

112. Well, in mine

You get lamer by the post, lol.

[EOTE]

115. I thought I wasn't going to get blessed with your insightful posts anymore?

I'm glad you thought better of it. lol.

[cthulu2016]

87. The INHERENT connection is personal freedom and privacy

Griswold and Roe are based on the same general idea as legalizing porn... that the state is limited in its ability to intrude into certain spheres of life. The porn decisions relied on different constitutional reasoning, having the First Amendment to use, but the philosophical and emotional motivation of the justices (which is, unfortunately, at least 50% of constitutional law in practice) was the same... this is none of the government's business.

You want to have sex using contraception? That's a sin. An outrage against god. A denial of the legitimate state interest in more citizens... whatever.

But when push comes to shove it is your business. Being gay is your business. Watching porn is your business. Shacking up versus getting married is your business.

You are free to imagine that kicking one leg from the stool of co-mingled autonomy and privacy rights leaves the stool standing. Others are free to disagree.

Either way, the fact is that the anti-porn feminists are "useful idiots" (Orwell's phrase) lending cultural support (however well-intentioned) to banning abortion and outlawing sodomy.

Our modern panoply of rights is a structure, not a buffet.

[hifiguy]

88. Excellent post that ties all of the theoretical threads

together quite marvelously. Tug on one thread and the others unravel.

[whathehell]

91. Sorry, but that's not an "inherent" connection, it's a LEGAL one, and as such

is reflective of modern social mores....Slavery and Denial of Rights to certain groups

were also once LEGAL. Calling Blacks "nigger" could probably be construed

as "legal" and a matter of "personal freedom" as well, but social pressure, which reflects both the

rising POWER of the heretofore oppressed group AND a larger awareness of the feelings of others

generally works at keeping people from using that "personal freedom".

When women are able to wield similar influence, those social pressures will kick in as well.

[hifiguy]

95. You're missing the point.

The right to privacy -that the government has no justification in regulating certain aspects of one's personal life is the legal doctrine that knits together Griswold v. Connecticut (striking down bans on provision of contraception to married couples) Loving v. Virginia (striking down miscegnation laws), Eisenstadt v. Baird (striking down laws prohibiting distribution of contaceptives to single persons), and Roe v. Wade. Sexually explicit materials are also covered by the First Amendment, and the right to possess and view them is also a matter that absolutely implicates the right to privacy.

The underlying justification is the same. One cannot remove the right to privacy as it relates to porn without undermining the rationale of Griswold, Loving, Baird and Roe. Dilute or undermine that principle and I can guaran-damn-tee you that you can kiss all of those cases but Loving goodbye within ten years.

[whathehell]

99. No, you're missing mine

and since I've made it abundantly clear, I won't be repeating it.

Goodbye and good luck!

[whathehell]

79. Thank you. n/t

[whathehell]

120. Thank you...Most men here react to negative commentary on ANY sort of porn like the prototypical

wingnut putting his fingers in his ears and chanting:

"NAH NAH NAH NAH NAH" !

Writer Susan Brownmiller said it clearly in her prize winning

book on rape "Against Our Will":

"The liberal male mind, so quick to make the connection

between negative images of minorities and their second class status,

is fiercely obdurate when it comes to the treatment of women".


They're completely unwilling to see it from any other viewpoint but their own.

[LanternWaste]

77. Post hoc ergo prompter hoc.

Post hoc ergo prompter hoc.

Third one of the morning...

[cthulu2016]

86. No, you are mistaken

The OP notes a correlation, it does not say "therefore..." and it certainly does not argue that better treatment of women arises from legalization of pornography.

So if we are talking fallacies, you are guilty of a straw-man argument in claiming the OP asserts things it does not.

_________

A sideways point... If I were making a formal argument in the OP it would not be one of causation, but one of necessary co-existence or co-development. Legalizing porn did not cause legalizing abortion, or visa-versa. It is, however, a fact that the two were two expressions of a larger movement, and since the ethical and philosophical underpinnings of a whole host of freedoms are intertwined it is not obvious that reversing one does not undermine all.

[LanternWaste]

96. The word "therefore" is not necc if it is implied.

Third one this morning. The word "therefore" is not necc if it is implied.

Righteous cowboys, indeed.

[cthulu2016]

103. Now you add mind-reading

Erroneous assertion of what is implied is a common when building a straw-man.

You set 'em up. You knock 'em down. If there's fun in it for you, that's cool.

But no reasonable person would read the OP as stating, or even implying, that the correlation is causal.

That does not, however, make the correlation of no interest.

There are reasons for the correlation that are, though not causal, quite informative.

[hobbit709]

84. like they do in China?

[creatives4innovation]

122. Sad

Commercialization of literally everything in our lives is a sad commentary on our society. This is though how our economy works and the imperative of profit at all costs. Case in point, the Ukraine. We destabilized the country and one consequence is that the region is now the leading exporter of sex workers to Western countries. For a society to be conquered, it needs to disintegrate to such a degree that its people are desperate to the point of resorting to selling themselves. The profiteer societies, which I suppose Norway is now among, need to be taught to consume the sex services that are now on offer as a result, thus completing the perverse economic loop. I lived in Norway years ago and think this development is sad. The first time I came across my nephew viewing quite hardcore pornography, he was 9 years old. The Internet, of course, makes this possible by anyone, of any age, anywhere at anytime. Small children are being taught intimacy from an exploitative and abusive industry. They're taught that sexual aggression and sexual self-harm is normal. I live next door to a quick mart that places graphic porn magazines at the eye level height of a small child next to the candy rack. Children from the neighborhood frequent the shop and learn early that sex servicing and sex work is completely normal. Sex workers are disproportionately represented by the economically disadvantaged, the young and very young, and ethnic minorities. Less healthy, safe and natural sexuality, less love, intimacy, gentleness, caring, and tenderness. More degradation of the human spirit, more survival sex, sex trafficking, child porn, teen porn, youth servicing adults. Hooray! Another win for inhumanity!