Republicans are drunk with power. What a stupid fucking idea. There’s no chance of banning porn. Then they wouldn’t be able to jerk to Trans women and feel shame after.
Trans women are hot, in case that reads as though the shame is correct. It’s not.
If you think the porn industry is exploitative and abusive now, just wait until they push it all underground.
The studios will move out of the country, most likely.
I’m pretty anti-porn just like I’m very anti-religion but neither of these things can be killed by banning them. The idea that banning porn will somehow prevent people from accessing it when we know even people in NK or places like the Middle East can access it is just crazy, of course Americans will continue to be able to access it, and like you said this will just push production and distribution underground actually exacerbating the issues with the porn industry. I have few actual complaints about the end result of porn, I don’t believe it’s good or healthy but as a product to be consumed it’s only moderately harmful but the production of porn is where the real evils are found. This will lead to those in the porn industry being abused at rates and in ways currently unfathomable or illegal.
Just think about the popularity of the “schoolgirl/barely legal” image as it currently exists in porn. If it becomes just as illegal to hire a young-looking 25 year old actress as it is to exploit an actual child, a lot producers will opt for the latter.
Woah, that’s a thought that hadn’t occurred to me. You’re absolutely right.
This is true about almost every vice. That’s why Prohibition didn’t work. Almost as soon as alcohol was banned, people started making very adulterated products, people died, organized crime became a thing. It’s the same idea with cannabis, sex work, other drugs, etc. The result of prohibition is almost always people getting hurt.
This is exactly it. A couple of days ago there was an Ask Lemmy thread about the legalization of marijuana. My entire argument is “Prohibition of vice does not work and only empowers organized crime.” This has been proven over and over again throughout history. It shouldn’t even be a question anymore.
It’s more complicated than that. It /did/ work in some sense. The prevalence of severe alcoholism was insane prior to prohibition and it dropped precipitously. The problem is, the cost of prohibition is so many actual lost lives. Both from unsafe supply and organized crime.
A public health approach also can reduce the harm of alcoholism while not creating new deaths. It’s worth understanding the difference so we can expect, for example, pot to become more abused after legalization, but if public health measures are in place, limited harm.
Nothing that you said contradicted anything that I said. We are agreeing.