Why Don't Feminists and the MSM Go After Porn?

gework

Ostrich
Gold Member
 
gework said:
The mask has really slipped on porn this year.

From an eGirl with 1.6 million followers:


These provocative women really think they are so clever. No foresight whatsoever for the eventual consequences of their actions in this life, or the next.

God have mercy on these corrupted fools
 
Honk999 said:
gework said:
The mask has really slipped on porn this year.

From an eGirl with 1.6 million followers:


These provocative women really think they are so clever. No foresight whatsoever for the eventual consequences of their actions in this life, or the next.

God have mercy on these corrupted fools

It's pitiful. I don't even get mad anymore, i get filled with sadness over this dying world when i see this kind of degeneracy spreading.
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
Basil II said:
HermeticAlly said:
I've always thought it was weird that feminists (and women in general) aren't more opposed to porn.
...

I would say it benefits women by keeping those who they perceive to be low value men inside their basements and not on the streets trying to date them. Natural Alphas can use porn and still date without issue whereas male sub 7's may just check out as you describe and women are okay with that.

This is ridiculous.

Porn doesn't benefit women (or anyone for that matter).

The worst women end up doing porn themselves (which obviously doesn't benefit them). And all other women are forced to compete with porn by dressing sluttier and putting out easier.

Some women will give in and become more slutty (obviously not beneficial to them).

The most traditional, virtuous women will resist this, but they will find themselves in a world where almost all high-value men are looking for easy, pornographic casual sex instead of finding a genuine connection with a real woman. This severely limits their options when it comes to finding a husband, especially if they are not willing to put out before marriage (obviously not beneficial to them).

And "natural alphas" can't use porn without any issues. It affects them severely. It makes them far more likely to pursue casual sex and fornication rather than pursuing a healthy marriage and family.
 

Towgunner

Woodpecker
Why don't feminists and MSM go after porn?

The feminists have, or at least, a cohort of them have gone after it. Than again, there's this "sex positive" cohort of feminism too. As you can see they differ by 180 degrees on this. Such discord is inherent to feminism. Outside of insisting that women be equal under the law the rest of their ideology is disjointed and incoherent. And much of it contradicts itself out of existence, at least intellectually. Porn is one of many such contradictory examples. Certainly, I'd say the bulk of feminist influence has been towards the suppression of sex in general, reference all the new campus rape regulations etc. A female can claim rape if she simply decided the next day that she regretted the incident, even though she consented the night before. Its moving into a puritanical direction. Meanwhile the "slut walks" are also becoming more extreme. Go figure. Rather than try to understand, let's hope more of this division occurs so it rips itself apart.

The MSM isn't against porn because they're part of the overall perverted agenda. liberal progressives are obsessed with sex. And, again, I really don't know why. The liberal progressive agenda may appeal to the likes of celebrities, who are aligned, logically, to a more sexually open society, since they can enjoy the benefits of such a society. But those people are a minority among their ranks. Most liberal progressives are not that worthy and, therefore, not very sexually attractive and not very sexually active. As such, they do not enjoy the benefits of a sexually open society. Observing the "slut walks" shows you all you need to know. None of those girls have any right to wear those outfits. Okay, yes, they have the "right" to do it...I mean from more of a social point of view. They're gross. Flabby bellies, pale skin, awkward bodies, see that a lot. I often wonder if this is some sort of a innate reaction similar to their other reactions against nature and ultimately themselves. I'd wager most slut walk walkers wear such revealing outfits only when they do slut walks. They're just not good looking girls, so, they're not getting it. And if they're not sexually active they're are not actually sluts. They just want to say they are because they're rebelling and wish they could be desired by men. These are the same people who talk of "body positivity", which the unveiled agenda is to redefine beauty standards. In other words make their ugly asses the socially attractive girls.

Its a big bag of headcase shit.
 

Dr. Howard

Peacock
Gold Member
gework said:
The mask has really slipped on porn this year.

From an eGirl with 1.6 million followers:


Whew, this is crazy and one of those heavy weights that are easy to come back to as a motivation reminder to stay off of porn.

It reminds me of a girl that I was chasing that was toying around with me in my youth. After some sort of incident I can't remember, I told her that I was finished. Her response was "you'll be back"

That was the motivation I needed to not go back. This girl's tweet is the same ammo needed to stay off porn.
 

gework

Ostrich
Gold Member
Rob Banks said:
men are looking for easy, pornographic casual sex instead of finding a genuine connection with a real woman.

This is something I've really noticed as I walk towards the light.

I hear lefties (including male feminists or as good as) say things that express a very low resolution view of sex. Things like,

"I wish I'd had more sex." [in LTR with child]
"Uwwwgghh. I need a shag."
"I'd take her home and I'd **** 'er!"
"I really need to shag something new." [in LTR]
"Just think of sex." (to relax), i.e. the one thing that men are hard-wired to loose control of their faculties over

The focus is on instant gratification and their view of sex is short-term and self-centric. It's also very base. They aren't saying they want to open a woman's heart shakra and expose her to the infinite consciousness. Their fantasies of sex are more like a quick one in a pub car park. The fantasies also revolve around hot women who would never be interested in these guys. They are not thinking of women with any other qualities, or even interest in them.

Most of these people make little effort to hide that they think they are morally better than me. Yet when I suggest that women are being turned into objects with little value beyond how good they can look out of the GYM and daubed in makeup they typically get shirty. It seems so contradictory to almost everything else they say. They can't even come up with compelling arguments like, "Oh. So you think women can only be saved by men, do you? Women need to be told what to do and control them sexually?" They just blow their soy-tops and spout off non-arguments.

When I suggest that a more healthy relationship with women they will never met, may be reading their poetry I am told I'm a stupid, oversensitive idiot (not an argument).

There is a good sub-Reddit (r/coomer) that is a main artery of counter-inversion culture. It mainly covers pornography, but touches on other topics. It's grown rapidly and is now attracting the attention of lefty mobs trying to get it banned, and screaming "Nazis!" The thing that really gets them is the veneration for strong, upstanding families. Images like:



It's like garlic to them.

The left have been posting photos of child porn with Nazi-related titles. It seems there is nothing they dislike more than people living healthy and virtuously. Maybe why they exert so much effort in telling the world how virtuous they are.

Never trust anyone who extols their personal virtues.
 

Leonard D Neubache

Owl
Gold Member
Her hair would have been bundled at the back when she was in public out of a sense of chastity for reasons similar to those requiring muslim women to wear a hijab. Wearing her hair down would be something she did at home or perhaps only in the bedroom depending on her upbringing.

Extremely lengthy hair (past shoulders) was also less common when women had a more important things to do than curate their sexual appeal. It would be kept long enough to be feminine but not so long that caring for it would cut into the time they required to do all that stuff that machines do now, like cooking and cleaning.
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
I see what you're saying, but it is a specific style I am talking about.

In pictures of typical 1950s American families, the woman always has that Owen Wilson hairstyle and excessive lipstick along with some makeup, and she ends up looking like a doll. I tend to find it a bit off-putting.

The men also have a specific style. Their hair is always perfectly well-groomed and they never have beards or mustaches.

You don't really see this when you look at pictures of families from other time periods or other cultures.
 

Easy_C

Crow
gework said:
The mask has really slipped on porn this year.

From an eGirl with 1.6 million followers:


It's remarkable how little pressure it took. And, as usual, they're their own worst enemy and their hysterical response to criticism betrays the truth.
 

Hermetic Seal

Kingfisher
Gold Member
That's how I feel when I see pictures of actresses from the 1950s or earlier. I can't actually tell if I think they're attractive or not because they always have those old lady hairstyles and lots of makeup. But it's just changes in style from one period of time to the next.

Late 1960s-1970s girls seem quite attractive, but the 80s giant curly hair look seems really dated.
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
HermeticAlly said:
That's how I feel when I see pictures of actresses from the 1950s or earlier. I can't actually tell if I think they're attractive or not because they always have those old lady hairstyles and lots of makeup. But it's just changes in style from one period of time to the next.

Late 1960s-1970s girls seem quite attractive, but the 80s giant curly hair look seems really dated.

I think it is telling that they used so much makeup.

In the old days, as far as I know, makeup was seen as something only prostitutes and loose women used. If you look at pictures of women from the 1800s, they barely use makeup compared to 1950s women. The fact that so many women in the "traditional" 1950s used so much makeup that they looked like dolls tells me that maybe the 1950s were not as traditional as everyone makes them seem. It was indicative of what was to come in the following decades.
 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
Rob Banks said:
HermeticAlly said:
That's how I feel when I see pictures of actresses from the 1950s or earlier. I can't actually tell if I think they're attractive or not because they always have those old lady hairstyles and lots of makeup. But it's just changes in style from one period of time to the next.

Late 1960s-1970s girls seem quite attractive, but the 80s giant curly hair look seems really dated.

I think it is telling that they used so much makeup.

In the old days, as far as I know, makeup was seen as something only prostitutes and loose women used. If you look at pictures of women from the 1800s, they barely use makeup compared to 1950s women. The fact that so many women in the "traditional" 1950s used so much makeup that they looked like dolls tells me that maybe the 1950s were not as traditional as everyone makes them seem. It was indicative of what was to come in the following decades.

You're wrong about this. Makeup in 1800 was far heavier than anything since, even men used to powder their faces and wear wigs.

Ironically real sluttiness started out in the 1960s, when women started wearing less makeup, and dressing more simply.
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
911 said:
...
You're wrong about this. Makeup in 1800 was far heavier than anything since, even men used to powder their faces and wear wigs.
...
Ironically real sluttiness started out in the 1960s, when women started wearing less makeup, and dressing more simply.

https://people.howstuffworks.com/about-makeup1.htm

There is some good information in there about makeup and its association with prostitutes.

It makes sense when you think about it. Why would a woman need to cover up her naturally beautiful face in order to look "more sexy" unless she was a prostitute?

Also, sluttiness did not start out in the 1960s. The birth control pill was available decades before the 1960s, and in the 1920s feminism had already taken root. The concept of the "new woman" involved women being more in control of their sexuality. The 1920s was also when "anthropologist" Margaret Mead wrote her famous book claiming that Samoa was a free-love sex society and that Samoans did not value monogamy or virginity.
 

Athanasius

Pelican
There simply isn't any better way for a man to put a hook in his own nose and sell himself into bondage than to chase his illicit sexual desires.

The whole man is to drink joy from the fountain of joy. As St. Augustine said, the rapture of the saved soul will "flow over" into the glorified body. In the light of our present specialised and depraved appetites, we cannot imagine this torrens voluptatis, and I warn everyone most seriously not to try. - CS Lewis, The Weight of Glory

"For many are the victims she has cast down, And numerous are all her slain. Her house is the way to Sheol, Descending to the chambers of death."
 

jeffreyjerpp

Kingfisher
Rob Banks said:
It makes sense when you think about it. Why would a woman need to cover up her naturally beautiful face in order to look "more sexy" unless she was a prostitute?

Is this a serious question? There are a million valid reasons why a woman might wear makeup aside from prostitution, and you sound like a literal 1600s Puritan.

Makeup is expected for women at most formal events, and to a reasonable degree in work settings. Women want to look their best for their husbands, friends, and anyone else who might enjoy their charm and beauty. There is nothing wrong or abnormal about any of it. Women who were not blessed with natural beauty (the vast, vast majority) can make themselves more palatable for the rest of society, which is just plain considerate.

The problem with prostitution, on the other hand, is the actual prostitution it generally involves.
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
jeffreyjerpp said:
Rob Banks said:
It makes sense when you think about it. Why would a woman need to cover up her naturally beautiful face in order to look "more sexy" unless she was a prostitute?

Is this a serious question? There are a million valid reasons why a woman might wear makeup aside from prostitution...

You're missing my point.

I'm not insinuating that all women who wear makeup are prostitutes. That would be ridiculous.

I'm just saying that the motivation for women to wear makeup has to do with hiding their natural looks (i.e. deception) and increasing their sex appeal (hardly to be considered pure and wholesome motives).

jeffreyjerpp said:
...and you sound like a literal 1600s Puritan.

No, actually I sound like an 1800s English Victorian. Queen Victoria herself was against makeup because she associated it with prostitutes.

What is wrong with 1800s Victorian English morality (or 1600s Puritanism for that matter)? Were they too "repressed" and not "sexually liberated" enough?

jeffreyjerpp said:
Makeup is expected for women at most formal events, and to a reasonable degree in work settings. Women want to look their best for their husbands, friends, and anyone else who might enjoy their charm and beauty.

It is "expected" precisely because of the culture we live in.

Also, I can't imagine a woman being reprimanded by her boss for not wearing makeup to work. Women make the choice to wear makeup at work because they believe it increases their sex appeal (which has many benefits apart from finding sexual partners).

If a boss were to reprimand a woman for not wearing makeup, then, if that woman has any self-respect, she should quit that job immediately because the boss is literally ordering her to make herself sexier for him. It would be the same as if a boss reprimanded a female employee for not showing enough cleavage.

As far as "looking good for her husband," I can't imagine anything more depressing for a woman than having to literally conceal her face in front of her husband because he doesn't find her attractive enough.

jeffreyjerpp said:
Women who were not blessed with natural beauty (the vast, vast majority) can make themselves more palatable for the rest of society, which is just plain considerate.

The vast majority of women are blessed with natural beauty. Most ugly women are ugly either because they don't take care of themselves (i.e. they become fat), because they have poor style (wear too much makeup, have short/dyed hair, dress poorly, etc.), or, most importantly, because of their demeanor and the way they carry themselves.

I've met women who are both objectively a 5 or 6 out of 10, but one is far more feminine, sweet, and nurturing in the way she carries herself, and these qualities make her far more attractive and charming than the woman with similar looks who doesn't possess these qualities.

I would say that how a woman carries herself is the most important factor in determining how attractive she is (far more important than having big tits or a nice ass).

A lot of men are too accustomed to the current culture where what makes a woman "attractive" is defined by Hollywood, the music industry, and the fashion industry. That is why you are able to claim that "the vast majority of women are naturally unattractive."

The vast majority of women would not be able to be supermodels. So what? I wouldn't want to marry a supermodel. I would much rather have a woman who is "uglier" but carries herself in a sweet, feminine, nurturing way, isn't full of herself, and feels comfortable enough in her own skin that she doesn't feel the need to artificially alter her looks.

Not to mention, you can tell when a woman is wearing makeup and it doesn't look natural. It is a (mild) example of the uncanny valley effect.

I can't think of anything more insulting for a virtuous, feminine, family-devoted woman than to be told that she needs to artificially cover up her face because she is "not sexy enough." Firstly, it is insulting for a woman to be told her natural looks are not good enough, and secondly, it is insulting and degrading for a virtuous woman to be told that she needs to increase her public sex appeal.

jeffreyjerpp said:
The problem with prostitution, on the other hand, is the actual prostitution it generally involves.

Thank you, Captain Obvious.
 
Top