Comment by stavros
4 months ago
Sure, but if the goal is to minimise access to violence, why did the GP say "they can access porn" instead of "they can access violence"? I doubt the two are synonymous.
4 months ago
Sure, but if the goal is to minimise access to violence, why did the GP say "they can access porn" instead of "they can access violence"? I doubt the two are synonymous.
They're not synonymous but a vast amount of pornography available online constitutes violence against women.
The commercial sex trade, including both porn and prostitution, is a multi-billion dollar industry that seeks to normalize extreme acts and promotes the dehumanisation of women and girls.
This framing trades nuance for moral panic. The assertion that pornography inherently constitutes violence against women is not an argument but a slogan. It is ideological posturing, not analysis. The so-called ‘commercial sex trade’ as you put it is complex, and your narrative is not intellectually serious.
So why would the solution to dehumanising women be "minors shouldn't be able see it"?
Perhaps because as an adult you understand we understand this can influence them when its not supervised?
2 replies →
The whole point here is to prevent impressionable children from growing up watching videos of women being treated like objects, so that they don't grow up to view women as objects
15 replies →
The first ammendment, as presently interpreted, makes banning violent pornography virtually impossible. Restricting access to it is a far more tractable solution.