Comment by aaaja
4 months ago
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?
Perhaps it would be a better solution to ban the dehumanising kind of porn for everyone.
1 reply →
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
If the states banning porn weren’t generally the same states restricting medical care for women, I’d say you have a point, but that’s simply not the case.
“Protecting women” is the sales pitch, not the objective.
2 replies →
Has there been some outbreak of this? Genuinely confused. My impression is that sort of behavior has been decreasing my entire life while access to porn has been increasing.
10 replies →
Is porn a bigger problem than Andrew Tate in that regard?
The first ammendment, as presently interpreted, makes banning violent pornography virtually impossible. Restricting access to it is a far more tractable solution.