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

Leonard D Neubache

Owl
Gold Member
In that picture the artist is exaggerating the redness of the lips since the boy and the little girl have lips almost as red as the mother's. It's meant to infer health and vitality.

Here's another Harold Anderson.

 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
Rob Banks said:
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.

The birth control pill was only approved for general use as a contraceptive in 1960.

The social stigma against single mothers was still pretty strong in the 1960s, it only started to be normalized in the 1980s with propaganda like Murphy Brown and second wave feminism.
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
You're right. The pill became legal in 1960.

I'm sure in the '50s and '60s sluttery and single motherhood were way more stigmatized than they are today. That doesn't mean that the '50s and '60s were as "traditional" as everyone seems to believe.

The seeds for modern degenerate society had already been planted decades earlier, and you could see them beginning to take root. There was first- and second-wave feminism. The 19th amendment was passed in 1920 (4 decades before the 1960s). There was the consumerism of the 1950s (which is seen as acceptable because everyone could afford it). There is the fact that kids born in the 1950s and '60s would go on to be the boomers. Obviously, the way they were raised by the so-called "greatest generation" has something to do with the way they turned out.

Women in the 1950s were starting to go to college more often and pursue careers more so than before. Rock music was becoming popular. Women were wearing tons of makeup all the time (which in Victorian England was considered to be for low class women and prostitutes). Communism had taken hold all over the world (and to a certain extent in America as well, where it was known as "progressivism").

The 1950s were only "traditional" by comparison to modern society. 19th century and medieval men would have considered the 1950s to be degenerate. The 1950s were the beginning of the end for traditional values.
 

Athanasius

Pelican
Hey I like the Puritans and I like makeup on a lady... reasonably applied. "In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior. Your adornment must not be merely external--braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God." (1 Peter 3:1-4)
 

gework

Ostrich
Gold Member
Semetic lewd blob Ron Jeremy is being MeToo'd:

[Lewd blob] Ron Jeremy was charged on Tuesday with sexually assaulting four women in incidents dating back to 2014.

The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office charged Jeremy with eight counts, including forcible rape, forcible penetration and forcible oral copulation.

If convicted, he faces up to 90 years to life in prison, according to prosecutors.

Jeremy, 67, was taken into custody following his initial court appearance on Tuesday afternoon. He is being held on $6.6 million bail, and is expected to be back in court for his arraignment on Friday morning.

Jeremy is accused of sexually assaulting three women at West Hollywood bar in separate incidents in 2017 and 2019. He is also accused of raping a 25-year-old woman at a home in West Hollywood in May 2014.

Jeremy faces three charges of forcible rape, three charges of forcible penetration by a foreign object, one count of forcible oral copulation and one count of sexual battery. The victims are identified in the complaint as Jane Does 1 through 4.

https://variety.com/2020/film/news/ron-jeremy-porn-charged-sexual-assault-1234646918/

As far as I am aware the guy has been dicing with death for years:

 

Mr Freedom

Sparrow
They don't want porn banned because it makes men weak. Which is the ultimate goal of feminism and it's 6 pointed star backers.

With regards to Ron Jeremy his case will sure be an interesting watch. He may deny it now but virtually most porn stars have done some gay action scenes in the past. I wonder if Ron is one of them? He probably has dirt on a ton of directors who may have used him or guys that he knows from his time in the filth industry.
 

Thurisaz

Newbie
Why don't these same people ever seem to criticise pornography in which women are routinely dominated, choked, spanked; then held down as they get their faces sprayed?
Because their enemy is Christ. They want to destroy everything that remind them of Him - that is, all that is good, beautiful and true. Like the family.

They do not attack porn because it is their weapon against healthy families. Read up on it in E. Michael Jones's Libido Dominandi. The book is massive, but one of the most important ones to read these days.
 

wannable alpha

Woodpecker
Conservatives tried to ban porn but failed cause the greatest generation believed porn production and distribution is the same as political speech and deserves the same protection. On what basis can porn be banned? Any reason conservatives bring up has already been "debunked" and defeated in the courts and media.

1. It harms children
Pornographers' response - It is the parents' responsibility to ensure that their children are not watching porn. Porn is entertainment for adults. It is no more real than superhero movies.

2. Destroys marriages
Pornographers' response - Porn is entertainment for adults. It is no more real than superhero movies. If a man or woman has no self control that is his/her problem.

3. Against God/traditional morality
Pornographers' response - This is religious fanaticism. Separation of church and state.

4. Degrades women.
Pornographers' response - Many women in tough financial situations are empowered by it cause they become financially independent.

5. Exploitation of women
Pornographers' response - Females can explore their sexuality in a safe manner. If there are some bad apples then the industry needs to be regulated in order to create a better working environment. The argument is that it is a legit field like any other.

6. Porn performers age should be increased to 21.
Pornographers' response - Many 18 year olds are smarter than many 30 year olds. Mention the names of some 18 year old pornstars who later on made it good in their lives.
18 year olds are also allowed to sign up in the military, fight and die for the country. So what's the big deal with them doing porn?

7. Porn = prostitution
Pornographers' response - It is not prostitution since it is a man and woman (and plenty more) agreeing to get money for the filming rights. They are not being paid for sex but for the recording and distribution rights.

Points 6 and 7 are the most stupid excuses that I have heard and the fact that the porn industry and it's defenders get away with it shows the fact that liberals are so open minded that their brains have fallen out from their skulls.

An 18 year old signs up in the military cause the nation needs young men and women to fight and defend the country. Also, they are under the guidance of senior officers. No 18 year old is made a general. The minimum age of being a public official is also 25 or even 30 in most countries. No 18 year old is allowed to become the Prime Minister or President.

If there is sex and money involved, then it is prostitution. Anything else is just splitting hairs.
 

Elipe

Woodpecker
3. Against God/traditional morality
Pornographers' response - This is religious fanaticism. Separation of church and state.
Correct response to the pornographers' response: Thanks for showing us why separation of church and state was a mistake. We will now aggressively enforce anti-blasphemy laws against you and drive you out of our nation.
Actual conservative response that happened: I'm sorry for hurting your feelings and for betraying the anti-theistic, atheistic principles of the Enlightenment. That would be the worst thing we Christians could possibly ever do. We pray for the great success of your porn business.
 

john3D

Newbie
Elites are smart enough to know that even they should never try to touch women's penchant for rough sex.

Rough sex and domination is like a bread and circus for women, something they would know to never try to take from them, if anything I'd think they would actually try to magnify it even further.

Something you will notice about lots of women these days is they will post a picture of Baphomet on their social media somewhere. Women in general love Baphomet and scenes of demonic powerful sexual imagery and taboo corruption.

Besides they don't need to, because due to women's exceptionally fine tuned capacity for cognitive dissonance, they can easily push both rough sex and feminism at the same time.

Pornography is a very potent psyops weapon as well against men, but also to a lesser degree women, so they certainly would not get rid of it.

Feminism is just like black lives matter. It's not actually about real empowerment in either case, it's just about creating groups that you can control to achieve political purposes. So trying to make them make sense from a moral perspective will always ultimately lead to seeing their true purpose.
 
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.

Your analysis is close.

Going back to the 80's, feminists and the fundamentalist religious right (Jerry Falwell and Andrea Dworkin) formed a brief alliance to demonize porn not as something that weakened masculinity (the feminists have been doing that for years) but rather the opposite: They claimed "reefer madness". But most feminists I talked to about it obviously were simply prudish (the Anita Hill case was about to break out and feminists criminalized what was the most common way of men/women meeting and marrying: at work.)

This begs the question as to what's the net effect of pornography on the male sex drive: Yes, there are some who become violent and some who become sedate and disinterested in relationships. I've read mostly about the latter in modern criticisms of pornography addiction. Which effect is overall greater? How many incels went violent due to anger that they couldn't fulfill pornographic fantasies versus some who were frustrated that they couldn't have relationships with normal women and pornography couldn't sate their appetite?

But that's not the question for this thread so much as why feminists don't appear to be going after porn today. I've lived through some of history so here's my first hand observation:

Feminism 40 years ago was made up of Emma Watson types: Privileged and oppressed and largely mostly feminine with an elite butch lesbian leadership. The hairy legged types were in the charge and THEY didn't like pornography because it was mostly straight sex. Men enjoyed it. Notice that gays mostly like to hang out with women but lesbians largely don't like to hang out with men.

Back then, feminists (and trad-feminist) women mocked guys who masturbated, read porn, etc. because a Chad shouldn't need those things. But they also didn't like the idea of competition. A man should only satiate his lust via earning it from women via one-sided marital commitment (she can divorce and walk away with 1/2 of his stuff) or dating. So this was their opposition to porn, prostitution, and such (this goes back to early feminism.)

And that's where "equality under the law" feminism comes in. Feminists got that largely back in the 1960's. Ask a feminist what inequality in the law they're referring to and they'll cite stuff that has nothing to do with legal inequality. Men don't get free taxpayer funded abortions, free daycare for single fathers, a "wage gap" made up of men who work less hours but want to be paid the same, etc. Even back in the suffrage era, the Titanic happened and suffragettes rowed away saying "It's traditional for women and children to go first!"

So... why the change?

Ironically, because pornography became MORE degenerate, feminists liked it more. Playboy and other such porn was about straight porn. Men fantasizing about an ideal they could get in marriage. Just like alcoholics spend a lot of money on hard liquor, the profits in the porn industry come from fetish stuff. This fetish stuff includes a lot of lesbian action and stuff that suits leftist allies with feminists: gays, interracial action, etc. That kind of degeneracy kills the Patriarchy so why shouldn't feminists be into that? The TERF feminists are against trans-women using their bathrooms but they're trapped by their own logic of "gender equality" they pushed when it suited them against men.

Regarding women hurt in the pornography industry: Feminists looked the other way at Bill Clinton because of his political stance. Most career women don't lose any sleep over their overpriced clothes being made by women in Asian sweatshops. Hollywood also exploits women (even under the best conditions). Corporate America and the education industry are also exploiting women to go into decades of debt to get jobs as serfs where they sit at a desk, childless, making someone else rich.

The "equality under the law" segment of feminism is largely moot. What legal rights do men have that are denied to women? Ask any feminist that and they'll bluster "wage gap" but that's inequality of outcome, not legal sexism. Feminism is an extension of chivalrous entitlement, not a rejection of it.

My guess is that the remaining straight, marriage minded feminist women (the Emma Watson types) largely don't like pornography but the tatted up, face pierced types are into it. 30 years ago, I told the mainstream feminists (the Emma Watson types), that they weren't going to take the Patriarchy down and be liberated, but rather would just break down the gates and let the barbarians in. They mocked me and called me, I don't make this up, as a knuckle dragging Taliban member. This was in the 1990's. A mere decade later, those same feminists were criticizing "Islamaphobia."

In other words, they're useful dupes.
 

questor70

Ostrich
Feminists are against anything that favors men getting their rocks off without paying what they deem to be an acceptable price. They also don't like men acting as an intermediary between the negotiation. But this explains why some feminists can support sex workers--as long as the women aren't being managed by a pimp or other intermediary. Even if it's "degrading" the act of putting a price-tag on it is seen as empowering or at least an even exchange in the sens that men are humiliated by having to pay rather than earn. The cheaper or easier the gratification the more threatening it is to some women. That's why mere titillation in a movie or videogame (or even holding eye contact for more than 3 seconds) is attacked whereas camgirls and twitch thots, not so much. A woman's power comes from the idea that they can hold a man's sexual satisfaction up for ransom. Anything else is a violation of the natural order of things.
 

gework

Ostrich
Gold Member
There was a story the other day about an ad from New Zealand, in which a couple of lewd film jobbies go round to a house to dob some underage child into his mother for watching them in the act.


The message, which I have seen elsewhere, is disjointed.

- porn is OK for adults, but it can mess up children
- porn is a fantasy, but one that bizarely you should not indulge IRL

The last one is very confusing. Its maybe the most delicately ridiculous spider web of lefty tip toeing youll come across. As noted in the thrrad there is a desperetly rich narrative that needs propping up with mental gymnastics.
 

gework

Ostrich
Gold Member
This is what appears to be buried beneath this. From Witcoff:

The general Law of Gender Dynamics in the modern West, which is one over-arching Law expressed in 4 different ways:

1. Anything that restricts male sexual choice will be celebrated.
2. Anything that broadens male sexual choice will be vilified.
3. Anything that restricts female sexual choice will be vilified.
4. Anything that broadens female sexual choice will be celebrated.
 
Feminists are against anything that favors men getting their rocks off without paying what they deem to be an acceptable price. They also don't like men acting as an intermediary between the negotiation. But this explains why some feminists can support sex workers--as long as the women aren't being managed by a pimp or other intermediary. Even if it's "degrading" the act of putting a price-tag on it is seen as empowering or at least an even exchange in the sens that men are humiliated by having to pay rather than earn. The cheaper or easier the gratification the more threatening it is to some women. That's why mere titillation in a movie or videogame (or even holding eye contact for more than 3 seconds) is attacked whereas camgirls and twitch thots, not so much. A woman's power comes from the idea that they can hold a man's sexual satisfaction up for ransom. Anything else is a violation of the natural order of things.
Feminists are against anything that champions biblical morality.

Pornography, and the entire 'entertainment industry', are the fulfillment of what kinds of depravity will be incinerated at Revelation 21:8. Since Feminism and the MSM are anti-God rebellion movements, they will not readily go after 'one of their own' (pornography).
 
Perhaps, but some feminists are also anti male-gaze in such a way that seems positively Victorian in sensibility.

The common theme of feminists who are pro or anti porn is to control male sexuality, either by constraining or exploiting it.

There's a number of ironies in this and not just when it comes to feminism.

This is officially a men's Christian forum, but it spends a great deal of time talking about women. This is inevitable since women are needed by men for procreation, emotional support and to satisfy a raging sex drive. Men do not NEED women for much else. Men here are largely ok with providing support, both emotionally and financially, to women to raise families.

Feminism is the notion of a certain equality which calls for women getting what they want from men, but without giving anything in return. The right to vote without a military draft for women, for instance. The right to compete with men in the workplace but at the same time, to leave jobs they hate or can't compete in to become housewives of either men or the welfare state.

Feminists have twisted the term "equality" so remarkably that I'm surprised Orwell didn't have something to say about in 1984. Nonetheless, the relationship between Winston and Julia is remarkable in context of today's dating culture.

Feminists therefore are obsessed with independence from men (in the sense of not having to give men anything) but at the same time, they NEED so much from men. So this causes them to obsess with ways to manipulate men as well as to demonize men for their own needs. If they were to sympathize with men as human beings, this might cause them to question their entitlement worldview.


One hates what one needs but cannot control.

Unlike feminists, men CAN control women. It's only a matter of will.
 

Sitting Bull

Sparrow
The message, which I have seen elsewhere, is disjointed.

- porn is OK for adults, but it can mess up children
- porn is a fantasy, but one that bizarely you should not indulge IRL

The last one is very confusing. Its maybe the most delicately ridiculous spider web of lefty tip toeing youll come across. As noted in the thrrad there is a desperetly rich narrative that needs propping up with mental gymnastics.


1) It is indeed confusing, but it is in fact a "temporary adjustment" until even more degeneracy becomes the new normal.

2) It is indeed confusing, but at the same time it is the kind of message that's repeated so often, so continuously and in so many forms by our culture (for example when porn is called "adult" material) that even the brightest minds cannot help somehow believe "more or less" in it, at least at times.

3) It is indeed confusing, but at the same time very understandable because it represents a very common temptation, a very common form of wishful thinking. The unquestionable truth that sexual misbehaviour harms more when practiced at a younger age is distorted into a belief that it can somehow be kept "harmless" when practiced by adults.

Here, modern materialistic science serves sexual immorality in two ways. The first way (well noticed by Dr. E. Michael Jones) is with the modern screen technology allowing porn to become very common and very easy to use. The second way is the illusion that the knowledge of the physical, materialistic details of the sexual act gives us "control" over it, when of course the control is all the other way round. This fallacy goes by the (very ironic) name of "Sex education".
 
Top