Is rape evil? Yes.
Is slavery evil? Yes.
Is porn the acceptable cover for exploiting trafficked slaves? Yes, statistically. Check with the charities and research.
Is it the entire demand behind slavery, for public profit? Yes, statistically. Check with the charities and research. There is no product without demand.
Should the government shoot all those involved in slavery? Yes. As public deterrent. Also audit for corruption and confiscate past funds.
Would porn still exist? ..No. Not new, Western porn.
Does Porn/Hollywood (hardcore/soft) pay taxes on the money it admits to making? No.
Does porn cause known neurological issues such as hypofrontality? Yes.
Can those be reversed? Usually a little but not fully. Window of opportunity during development. Neural pruning.
Is it used to groom/corrupt children? Yes. In every case.
Is it being progressively normalised as softcore with the slippery slope over time into ‘Hollywood’? Yes.
See “The Kiss” scandal. Now adverts portray children passionately kissing. No chaste cheek pecks. Not anymore. Did you notice? A non-porn user would. Then there’s the obvious subversion:
If that happened in the 1950s, what would happen to the people who made that video?
1850s, what would happen to the producers and distributors?
What is that video, which was screen-capped from?
Did you immediately know it for what it was?
You think you haven’t seen child porn.. but they start subtle.
This is cognitive dissonance.
Is watching rape legal? No. Aiding and abetting, duty to intervene or report.
Should watching filmed rape of trafficking victims be legal? No.
How can you tell the difference?
Trick question, there isn’t one.
A non-groomed person capable of consent simply refuses to produce such videos. It is a symptom of a warped mind.
Is the purpose of porn sexual humiliation? Yes. Both viewer (Jesus warned of voyeurism’s evil and we all know about the cucks) and serial rape victim (see life outcomes of that trauma unless you’re a Guardian lefty, look for them).
Is it legal to violate your own human right to intimate privacy? Is it possible? This seal can only be broken ONCE. Consider Hollywood celebrities who strip off in films and imitate sexual acts for money. If their ‘nude photos’ aka intentionally created porn, are released, how can they be outraged? Category error prevails. There’s something lost already, they already withdrew their right to that type of privacy, their violation has been publicly witnessed. Apart from expected privacy (fair) of the photos themselves and profit of the photos themselves, what is the issue? Stigma. Like calling a porn “star” a whore when there’s video evidence. Category error. How can a celebrity with a ‘sex tape’ not be fair game for public scrutiny of who they’re fucking in future? Surely this becomes public information, acceptable fodder? You can’t have it both ways. Right to publicity has limits e.g. crime taking place, public interest in that. They surrendered that sanctity of intimacy by their own volition.
For the ‘define porn’ crowd – salacious nudity in particular situations intended to stimulate the libido. Most people wouldn’t even pose nude for an art class, finding that alone too ‘degrading’ (objectification for non-sexual purposes). Women used to produce ‘porn’ (really erotica) all the time minus the nudity condition for their husbands alone. Men didn’t carry around cameos of their wife’s face for sentimental purposes. That way, it isn’t cheating, since she can satisfy his libido on long journeys when she isn’t present to do it herself. Isn’t this, moral? So you can’t forget the issue of audience: purpose and anonymity. You can’t suddenly pick and choose who sees your material of published crassness if it’s hypothetically offered up to the world. That audience consideration is either supporting a relationship or degrading.
Middle-class white-washing of perversion pisses me off. It isn’t an art film, it’s a skin flick with subtitles.
WW2 guys encouraged to paint their planes started this.
Now rap is played to kids, subtitles of porn: ooh, aaah, yes, baby.
Targeted sexualisation of children already has a name: grooming.
Can masturbation be outlawed? No. Don’t be absurd. Strawman.
Does a healthy man need “porn” to do so? No. That is erectile dysfunction, or impotence as it used to be known.
Is porn designed as a supernormal stimulus? Yes.
Who principally uses it? Men with a surgically mutilated penis. This has been researched. Look into it.
Why? Psyops. Disenchant the white man. Attract non-whites to our shores also. A baited hook (called hookers).
Is it art? No. Modern art is also psyops. It was admitted (CIA). Meanwhile, how can there be a copyright on sterile reproductive acts, it’s medically impossible. If non-sterile, ancient therefore where is the right to charge for a thing when I can watch two flies fuck outside my window? Claim to exclusive right dismissed, where is the profit, then? Ah, subversion, distraction (bread/circuses) and international mental damage of otherwise stronger populations. Like the SJW hiring and plots.
Are people ashamed to admit they watch it? Yes.
Why? They sense the evil.
Does crime go up or down when porn is highly accessible? It goes up, see attacks on Japan’s schoolgirls for a good example. Predators are inspired by videos and practise mentally with them.
Do incarcerated prisoners show the same pattern? Yes.
Does it reduce libido? No, it actually stokes it (testosterone) and keeps the flame going, most predators have a low IQ and terrible imagination and therefore rely on external stimuli, including stories in forums about how to conduct certain attacks. Pathological populations do not behave as normal ones would predict.
What are the outcomes of porn ‘stars’, when tracked? Trauma, disease and suicide. All antisocial and preventable.
Is participation of the result, an endorsement of all practices related to it? Yes. Unless you’re a hypocrite.
Is the internet for children? No. Parents must be strongly shamed on this point.
Did erotica (the 2d non-damaging form of paper ‘porn’) exist pre-internet? Underground with legal restrictions on access from practicality.
Do kids or parents groom younger kids? Yes. Tragically.
How do they do this? Smartphones, mostly.
Do the search engines push this material on children? Yes.
Is general smartphone use in minors medically harmful? In many ways, yes.
Why aren’t smartphones/computers age restricted in sale and use? …..Apple stocks.
Customizing for wider market access, how shockingly libertarian.
And everyone gains in freedom from the situation, so it’ll never happen.
Remember degenerates, you’re probably watching people trafficked as kids, being raped.
[postmodern r-types are BTFO by this line, it’s been field tested on Guardian types for maximum potency]
Think about it, what is a “pimp”? A sex slave owner.
If the threat of a beating or death looms, is that consent, shitlibs? No. No it is not. Coercion vitiates consent, likewise duress to signed contracts.
Bonus: according to whom was the Prohibition a failure?
What actually happened?
Crime tanked, including rape of adults and children (alcohol is the most common date rape drug used to weaken ability to resist or plain knock kids and lightweights out) and domestic abuse of adults and children went down too (with no oh-so-convenient “drink” excuses). Why weren’t you taught that in school? Why did the People want Prohibition in the first place? They were noticing things. Consider the timing. Pre-Nazi.
As for driving things underground: should they be? Isn’t that better? Wouldn’t the thrill of taboo be better for users too?
Where is the right of healthy people to live without being bombarded by porn? It’s even outside for the “go outside” types, it’s on billboards! We do not consent, it is forced upon our minds. WHY?
How much does the stress of adverts cost us in the health service?
It is in soaps, in adverts, in kid’s films. It doesn’t sell, actually so WHY is it there, WHY isn’t there a choice in whether to consume it knowingly, beforehand? Bring back the CODE, Hollywood fears it.
Even young male toplessness in “kid’s films” would’ve disgusted your recent ancestors. Is nudity always sexual or not, Hollywood? Then why include it, or not? Rationing levels of clothing certainly don’t apply now, do they?
You want high culture? Bring back the laws about what theatres can and cannot show (previously covered). Most people want to go to the theater – if they had ratings systems like films – nudity, political propaganda, sexuality bullshit. We want to see real plays, not facsimile brothel shows. Most plays aren’t selling because we don’t want to see naked strangers, on stage or in the gym, thanks. Goes for most young people, actually. In surveys.
As for the white issue with ‘sexbots’ – they creep us out as lifeless humanoids. It triggers our disgust to necrophilia (or rape of the vulnerable and unconscious). The slow ones in motion and ‘speech’ seem mentally backward, like children (or physically looking like children). A chosen people who produce them and attempt to normalise their use in the MSM do not view the group they resemble as human, so to them it’s more like bestiality and they enjoy it as a sign of their superiority. They also have no historic qualms with rape. First they must produce dependent customers in the out-group by alienating them from the loving thing it seeks to cheaply replace. Seen any bots like that lately? Any youtube comments seem weirdly repetitive or targeted in this direction? Why does youtube allow them? Finally, they seek to monetise the constant online feed of spying data… for updates, of course. There won’t be a Tinder-like database of your fetishes and intimate photos. That’s impossible.