The Great Porn Debate - The Coomites vs Anti-Faparians

[Spooky Bones]

But how is it art or politics, and why should "freedom of speech" protect something that isn't?

 

[Cheerlead-in-Chief]

At 17, I considered horny men that fapped to porn basement dwellers.
I'm still not proven wrong.

In "Jerry Springer" there was an UGLY OBESE black woman that claimed to be a pornstar, kek.
I'll look up the episode..

 

[He Who Points And Laughs]

But how is it art or politics, and why should "freedom of speech" protect something that isn't?

Why does it have to be art or politics? I find "gangsta rap" to be devoid of virtue, but I'm not wanting to ban it. I simply refuse to buy it and never listen to it (aside from it being blasted from a '92 rusted Honda on the freeway during traffic).

 

[Lemmingwise]

I have two questions for each side.

For the pro-porners:

If we actually could ban porn with some degree of effectiveness, would it be something worth considering? I see a lot of people claim that you can't ban it anyways, with comparisons to US alcohol prohibition times. However, we also ban child-porn and although I'm sure that it's out there somewhere, it isn't bursting from the seams everywhere you go.
1. Would you consider a porn ban if it could be done effectively?
2. Would you consider a porn ban if it could be demonstrated to have positive effects on society? (the way that restrictions on cigarette commercials have helped reduce people dying to lung cancer)

For the anti-porners:

One component of the porn ban that started as well as some of the countries that have experimented with it, is to require some form of identification to assure that the person viewing porn is an adult. To what degree do you consider that a privacy risk? After all, suddenly that online session is tied to your ID, including cookies, IP, and whatever other parts can be gleaned as a result. Looking at what studies we have, we seem to know very little about the effects of porn. Positive negative, it seems very poorly studied. On top of that, a considerable number seem to draw their conviction in regards to porn from religious grounds. Does that mean it's impossible to change your mind on it, even if good studies did exist AND they would point toward it being possible to incorporate porn in a societal healthy way?
1. To what degree do you consider age-based porn ban a privacy risk?
2. What kind of evidence would it require to change your mind that there is a high value in a porn ban/restriction?

 

[Spooky Bones]

For the anti-porners:

One component of the porn ban that started as well as some of the countries that have experimented with it, is to require some form of identification to assure that the person viewing porn is an adult. To what degree do you consider that a privacy risk?

My concerns about porn do not disappear when either the consoomers or the actresses reach the age of 18.

After all, suddenly that online session is tied to your ID, including cookies, IP, and whatever other parts can be gleaned as a result. Looking at what studies we have, we seem to know very little about the effects of porn. Positive negative, it seems very poorly studied. On top of that, a considerable number seem to draw their conviction in regards to porn from religious grounds. Does that mean it's impossible to change your mind on it, even if good studies did exist AND they would point toward it being possible to incorporate porn in a societal healthy way?

I would have to see the studies. I am religious (Catholic) but the primary reasons for me to be opposed to porn on a societal level aren't even religious, they have more to do with the wellbeing of society and of the women involved. And probably the twinks, too, but I don't know shit about gay porn because I'm not gay and the very idea of it is repulsive to me.

I just can't imagine, by definition, porn being integrated healthily into society. How do you imagine this being possible?

1. To what degree do you consider age-based porn ban a privacy risk?

Would definitely be a privacy risk but if it was implemented (very hard if not impossible and would have to be done well) then you would give up your privacy in order to view it and I have no problem with it but as I stated above I would like to see a total ban of porn on the end of production and commercial distribution (to include making revenue off ads) not consumption.

2. What kind of evidence would it require to change your mind that there is a high value in a porn ban/restriction?

That most actresses were mentally healthy and that somehow porn increased your mental health. Both are doubtful in the extreme. I'd argue that porn consumption is eo ipso unhealthy.

 

[The Curmudgeon]

1. Would you consider a porn ban if it could be done effectively?

Nope. As long as reasonable regulations and protective measures are taken, there's no reason to keep consenting adults from enjoying sexual content made by other consenting adults.

2. Would you consider a porn ban if it could be demonstrated to have positive effects on society?

Still nope. Restrictions on cigarettes may have reduced smoking, but people still smoke. Likewise, people will still find some way to get off to sexual content. Vices still exist even if you try to crack down on them.

But how is it art or politics, and why should "freedom of speech" protect something that isn't?

Is it art? That's subjective. Is politics? People make it political. Freedom of speech? It certainly is! It's a form of expression. Obscenity laws make about as much sense as hate speech laws.

 

[FunPosting101]

Japan is occupied territory in the same way that vichy france was. The reason that porn has proliferated to such a degree in both Germany and Japan may be the result of the leadership.



Because there's a huge gap between commercial sex and recreational sex and procreational sex.

Prostitution is legal in my country. The argument went that it could be better controlled and monitored, as well as that they would pay tax on their earnings. The result is that the Netherlands has become a hub in sex trafficking and that neighborhood after neighborhood that had red light districts are getting closed down, because of the deleterious effects on neighborhoods around it. There's something strongly negative on the morale and spirit of people to see the daily large lines of cars before and after work hours around the red light districts. It's hard to describe how seedy it is.

It also makes being a "loverboy" as they're called here rather lucrative, where guys try to seduce socially isolated underage girls, get them in love with them and then gradually turn them into a prostitute.

There are a lot of help resources available, but under threats, prostitutes rarely dare to speak out, even when it's obvious they're not doing it out of free will.

Often they are lured from eastern europe with promises of scholarship or otherwise.

I don't think forbidding prostitution is necessarily the solution, it's one of those things that doesn't have a certain solution as we continue to juggle on how to deal with it. But to presume that prostitution is no different than selling a potato is misunderstanding the reality of most prostitution is like.

From what I've read about prostitution in the Netherlands, most of the forced prostitution has more to do with moroccan street gangs then it does anything that goes on in the brothels. How seedy you find something to be is a subjective thing and not really something to care about objectively. The deleterious effects are probably the complaining from people who don't like knowing that prostitution exists at all and would rather it was out of sight and thus out of mind.

 

[Spooky Bones]

Hot damn, Coomers are almost as easily triggered as furries or troons. I feel like the majority of my neg ratings actually come from my posts in porn threads.

edit:

stay mad coomers

 

[Spooky Bones]

Is it art? That's subjective. Is politics? People make it political. Freedom of speech? It certainly is! It's a form of expression. Obscenity laws make about as much sense as hate speech laws.

Freedom of speech isn't meant to be unlimited. Never was. Obscenity is (or was; the provisions are effectively neutered) a limitation on freedom of speech by definition.

 

[Spooky Bones]

Why does it have to be art or politics? I find "gangsta rap" to be devoid of virtue, but I'm not wanting to ban it. I simply refuse to buy it and never listen to it (aside from it being blasted from a '92 rusted Honda on the freeway during traffic).

Your taste notwithstanding, rap has undeniable artistry. Porn does not. It is for the dick not the mind or the heart.

 

[The Curmudgeon]

Freedom of speech isn't meant to be unlimited. Never was. Obscenity is (or was; the provisions are effectively neutered) a limitation on freedom of speech by definition.

I hear that same logic from SJWs. That excuse is used to censor people and ideas they don't like. It's authoritarian. In this case, you're using your religion as a shield to justify your excuse. Do you really want conservative Christians to be considered the same ilk as radical feminists? Do you really want to be the same shit, just a different pile?

 

[Spooky Bones]

I hear that same logic from SJWs. That excuse is used to censor people and ideas they don't like. It's authoritarian. In this case, you're using your religion as a shield to justify your excuse. Do you really want conservative Christians to be considered the same ilk as radical feminists? Do you really want to be the same shit, just a different pile?

"Hate speech" (what I think you're referring to, if you're referring to porn, then I agree with the SJWs in this case) is usually at it's root from people who want to make society a better place in their view. Porn does not have even this rewarding quality.

 

[Syaoran Li]

A society that doesn't ban porn is degenerate as fuck. I don't understand why this is even an issue. Oh wait, I do. Coomers and Jews, bad news. The fact that people make it a civil liberties issue is fucking exceptional as all hell. How is making porn a civil liberty?

Methinks the fundie doth project too much.

I like how you think anyone who doesn't A-Log the mere existence of porn is some sort of degenerate coomer instead of someone who knows that a ban would backfire and also knows that it would no doubt set a precedent for the government to ban other forms of speech.

Seriously, just because you can't look at a woman's tits without becoming a coomer doesn't mean that the rest of us are as incapable of practicing basic self-control as you are.

I hear that same logic from SJWs. That excuse is used to censor people and ideas they don't like. It's authoritarian. In this case, you're using your religion as a shield to justify your excuse. Do you really want conservative Christians to be considered the same ilk as radical feminists? Do you really want to be the same shit, just a different pile?

Given his posts seem to all revolve around "muh morality", "muh sex is not speech", and "muh Jews invented AstroTurf", I think he actually does want to be a pretentious moral authoritarian just like the SJW's.

 

[Spooky Bones]

Methinks the fundie doth project too much.

I'm a fundie now?

I like how you think anyone who doesn't A-Log the mere existence of porn is some sort of degenerate coomer instead of someone who knows that a ban would backfire and also knows that it would no doubt set a precedent for the government to ban other forms of speech.

When I'm talking about coomers negrating me, I'm talking about how the fact that this among my political opinions somehow engenders more negrating than anything else I post. Like, seriously, it's a majority of my "disagree" "dumb" and "autistic" ratings. People are sure passionate about their degeneracy.

Porn is not a form of "speech," As someone posted already imagine the Founders reaction to porn. it's harmful both to those who produce and those who consume it in a way that no other form of speech can ever be, even violent media. In contrast the hype about violent video games for instance proved to be much ado about nothing whereas the concerns about porn are very real.

 

[Syaoran Li]

I'm a fundie now?

When I'm talking about coomers negrating me, I'm talking about how the fact that this among my political opinions somehow engenders more negrating than anything else I post. Like, seriously, it's a majority of my "disagree" "dumb" and "autistic" ratings. People are sure passionate about their degeneracy.

Porn is not a form of "speech," As someone posted already imagine the Founders reaction to porn. it's harmful both to those who produce and those who consume it in a way that no other form of speech can ever be, even violent media. In contrast the hype about violent video games for instance proved to be much ado about nothing whereas the concerns about porn are very real.

1. Considering your entire argument hinders around religious morality and you openly admitted to being a hardliner traditionalist Catholic in the thread, you are a fundie. You may not be the Evangelical type often associated with the word, but you're still a fundie no less.

2. The courts have ruled against what you have said, and the reason why people rate your anti-porn tirades as dumb and autistic has nothing to do with defending degeneracy. It's because what you are saying is literally dumb and autistic, is entirely based on arguments of morality and is often backed up by citing disproven or outright false claims as evidence.

Also, invoking "muh World Jewry" doesn't help your case either.

 

[Spooky Bones]

1. Considering your entire argument hinders around religious morality and you openly admitted to being a hardliner traditionalist Catholic in the thread, you are a fundie. You may not be the Evangelical type often associated with the world, but you're still a fundie no less.

2. The courts have ruled against what you have said, and the reason why people rate your anti-porn tirades as dumb and autistic has nothing to do with defending degeneracy. It's because what you are saying is literally dumb and autistic, is entirely based on arguments of morality and is often backed up by citing disproven or outright false claims as evidence.

Also, invoking "muh World Jewry" doesn't help your case either.

I was invoking Jewry for the meme lol.

2. The courts are wrong. They've been so before and will be again with all due respect to stare decesis. Which they didn't respect when they revised the obscenity standards continually towards more and more degenerate bullshit.

1. I argue much more about the conditions for the women in porn and the impact on the consoomer than I do about religious morality. In fact I don't think I've argued on the basis of religious morality at all but only briefly mentioned I was a Catholic, and nowhere did I mention I was a hardcore trad. I probably wouldn't be on Kiwi Farms if I was a hardcore trad or a better Catholic although I like my smells and bells.

 

[Syaoran Li]

I was invoking Jewry for the meme lol.

2. The courts are wrong. They've been so before and will be again with all due respect to stare decesis. Which they didn't respect when they revised the obscenity standards continually towards more and more degenerate bullshit.

1. I argue much more about the conditions for the women in porn and the impact on the consoomer than I do about religious morality. In fact I don't think I've argued on the basis of religious morality at all but only briefly mentioned I was a Catholic, and nowhere did I mention I was a hardcore trad. I probably wouldn't be on Kiwi Farms if I was a hardcore trad or a better Catholic although I like my smells and bells.

1. If you were really concerned about the impact of porn on the consumer and the conditions for the performers in the industry, then shouldn't you come up with a better solution than an outright ban? A porn ban would protect the women in the porn industry about as effectively as the 18th Amendment was able to combat alcoholism.

2. Obscenity laws have the problem of being too subjective, a horribly antiquated holdover from colonial times, and in the years before the 20th Century, they varied wildly from state to state. The fact that obscenity has always been "I know it when I see it" means that it could be anything from existing only on paper or could end up with random people being charged for sending nude artwork and Henry Miller novels through the mail.

Obscenity laws are a relic that can't be enforced in any meaningful capacity in the digital age without going full Stalin and even then, it'd fail.

 

[Lemmingwise]

Considering your entire argument hinders around religious morality and you openly admitted to being a hardliner traditionalist Catholic in the thread, you are a fundie

This "you are a fundamentalist" line is weaksauce. I tried to see to what degree there is flexibility in thinking from both sides with my questions and he demonstrated greater flexibility on the issue than the pro-porners so to speak.

Is the side that is open to reconsider when there is new information the fundamentalist side or is the side that would not budge even in the face of new information the fundamentalist?

The "there has always been porn" argument is a poor one, because it has never been as prevalent as it is today. There is a huge difference to how it is regarded now compared to how it was regarded prior to the sexual revolution and it isn't just the internet that is responsible. I consider Kinsey (and kinsey-inspired playboy), and the birth control pill to be much more instrumental.

Kinsey changed the moral perception of orgasms and gave them a kind of divinity. The kids that tried to fight against being given an orgasm were judged to have benefitted from them because of the pleasure of an orgasm.

Some of Kinsey's ideas filtered into the common consciousness stronger than others, but the hedonists, which the majority of non-religious people seem to be, consider freedom to engage in pleasurable activity sacrosanct.

The fact that nobody so far would consider rethinking their position on pro-porn even if it would be established unequivocally that it is harmful AND that harm could be reduced with either restrictions or a ban SHOULD give you pause and ask yourself to which degree you are a fundamentalist hedonist.

 

[The Curmudgeon]

Porn is not a form of "speech,"

Yes it is. If all you wanted was reasonable restrictions and regulations, then I would see eye to eye with you. I'm all for banning child porn and bestiality. I support regulations that give sex workers protections and stop sex trafficking. However, you want to ban ALL pornography under the misguided, and frankly quite false, idea that somehow you can just force people to stop enjoying sex. Let consenting adults enjoy porn if want. No one's forcing you to like it. Even if you outright banned porn, people would find other ways to enjoy it. They would create similar outlets for their sexual frustrations.

You would make a good fundamentalist Muslim. You're just as backwards, authoritarian, and hypocritical as them. I don't know about you, but I don't want the United States to be a Christian version of Saudi Arabia or Iran.

 

[Anne Frankenstein]

I think the argument that you don't know where your porn is coming from (baring like super indie shit or cam girls) and it could be revenge porn/filmed under unsavory circumstances was enough to get me to stop watching it. Like if someone said 10% of meat is human meat I wouldn't risk the burger.