We Indians love simple solutions to complex problems. Corruption? Hang the criminals – that will show them! Hunger? Give free food to everyone! Pakistan? Just bomb them. And of course everyone knows that Facebook and other social networks are the cause of today’s youth having a poor attention span and being distracted. All our messes can be fixed by simple outright solutions that anyone over five can think of. So it’s hardly a surprise to see a petition in the Supreme Court blaming porn for the rise in sexual crimes.
It seems such a simple straightforward answer to the situation no? Apparently many of these crimes were committed after the perpetrators had watched porn. Isn’t it obvious that porn drove them to do it? Without it, these men would have only had pure thoughts and women would be safer!
Yes, so easy to blame all the sexual crimes on porn. It’s an easy target. Few people are going to stand up and publicly defend their right to watch porn. Much like you can bludgeon anyone concerned about their privacy by shaking the bogey of terrorism at them. It becomes a dividing point. Are you on the side of porn or on the side of innocent women? Choose!
But anyone with a brain will see that the root of sexual crimes lies in the archaic mindset of the people of India. Remember when a bunch of hooligans attacked a 15 year old girl in Guwahati outside a pub? Oh their reasons were so noble. Apparently they were “teaching her a lesson” for pub hopping. It was her own fault! And they were proud of themselves smiling for the camera and hoping that they would be hailed as heroes. That is the reason for sexual crimes. Even in the Nirbhaya case people were questioning the victim. What was she doing with a boy so late? What was she wearing? Why did she choose a bus?
But sure, go ahead and ban porn. That’s the problem.
What if we found a large portion of crimes are committed after drinking alcohol? I guess the next logical step would be to ban alcohol right? After all 100% of drunk driving cases are caused by it. So if we can ban porn why not alcohol? But again – porn is an easy target. Many citizens will stand up and proudly proclaim that they enjoy their evening drink. No one will say the same for porn.
Anyone with a brain will see that the root of sexual crimes lies in the archaic mindset of the people of India
I’ve not heard of any study that links porn to violent crimes. Some say it even reduces them since it provides an outlet for otherwise frustrated chaps. But let’s admit the premise. Let’s say that for some people, porn acts as a motivator for sexual crimes. My question is why should the rest of us sane people have our rights violated because they can’t handle it? As Robert A. Heinlein said, “The whole principle is wrong; it’s like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can’t eat steak.”
I’m not even going to address the technological impossibility of blocking porn without crippling the entire Internet. China devotes tons of time and manpower to this problem and they are not able to block it. You think India with its inefficient bureaucracy and lack of willpower will be able to outdo them? No way.
At worst, this focus on porn is misleading since it diverts attention away from the real problem. But maybe that’s the whole idea. Perhaps we don’t want to examine ourselves too deeply out of fear of what we will find.
“Portrayals of sex, rather than violence, leads viewers to lose respect for women to trivialize the crime of rape, a study of pornography condlues (James Weaver, University of Kentucky)
This applies to the general population, not just the “insane.”
Read “Harmful effects on Children of exposure to ponography” Canadian Institute for Education on the family
Wendy Maltz–“Pornography addiction is being described in the US as our newest and most challenging mental health problem.”
Judith Resiman on ponography research–“pornographyic visual images imprint and alter the brain, triggering an instant, involuntary, but lasting biochemical memory trail [that is] difficult or impossible to delete.”
Porn here in the US is already illegal for kids under 18, right? a kid can’t go to the 7-11 and buy a playboy or somethin.
For most people, you are right porn doesn’t effect them. At the same time, for most people, smog isn’t a big deal (yet we have vehicular emission controls). For most people, MSG is not a problem (yet MSG is regulated here in the states). For most people, alcohol is not a problem (yet kids under 21 cant get alcohol, includes kids between 18-20). For most people, driving above 100 mph is not a problem (yet speed limits are set at 65 mph).
In reply to Western Point of View
1. We’re not talking about children. Only adults. I thought that was obvious.
2. Most people (including myself) can handle porn without problems
3. Comparing porn to smog is specious because smog is part of the weather and can’t be avoided
4. Traffic accidents are an entirely different league of statistics altogether
In reply to bhagwad
1. what’s defined as an adult? Its all arbitrary. If you go by scientific brain studies, the brain doesn’t fully mature until 35 for men and 30 for women.
what’s the difference between a 17 year old kid looking at porn versus an 18 year old kid? 365 days?
2. Most people can also handle cigarette smoking just fine, yet why are there so many regulations on it? why are there so many regulations on cough syrup? You can only buy a certain amount of cough syrup. Same with MSG. Same with rat excremant in food. If your food contains 5% or less of rodent excremant, it is ok because THE GENERAL population can digest that level of excremant. Of course if you are immunodeficient, that does different. So most people can handle foods that contain 5% rat poop.
3: but MOST people can handle smog just fine. It is only a certain type of people (children and the elderly) who are susceptible. With that in mind, what is defined as porn? Many argue that non-nude images on magazines are close to pornography even.
4: How so? Statistically, people get hurt, right? It is still a regulation.
This is why secular regulations dont’ work. If you want to regulate society, do it based on religion (shariah). Otherwise, secular society should be ENTIRELY libertarian.
This includes:
no protection for children
no regulations on ANYTHING except life, liberty and the pursuit of property
no regulations on any foods
no traffic regulations
no federal police
no cyber police
no food/drug regulations
In reply to Western Point of View
1. Let’s not get into this again. An adult is whoever the state says is an adult. Namely anyone above 18. This is not the post to discuss whether or not 18 is the right age.
2. Yes, there are regulations on smoking and alcohol. But they are not banned.
3. No one is forcing people to sit on a computer and watch porn. Smog can’t be avoided. The fact that it’s difficult to pin down porn is even more reason to not regulate it.
4. Traffic accidents cause way more deaths than porn. It deserves special treatment. It’s all a continuum. Just because there is debate about where to draw the line doesn’t mean there is no line.
5. Please stay within the topic. No more comments on Sharia etc for this particular post.
In reply to bhagwad
1. 18 depends on the state. In Georgia, it is 16.
2. There are regulations and they are not banned, HOWEVER, smoking is pretty much to a point in some states where NO ONE can smoke outside of their own home.
3. Good point.
4. Again, good point, however a death is a death. Cardiovascular disease is the biggest killer, yet you don’t see people regulation beef or fat consumption, right? How do you outweigh something like that?
Plenty of research out there that shows porn eventually can desensitize men. University of Utah–men beocme addicted to pornographic materials, and begin to desire more explicit and deviant material and end up acting out what they have seen.
77% of boy child molesters and 87% of girl child molesters admit they are imitating sexual behavior they have seen modeled in pornography.
Rape is one issue, but sex trafficking is ballooning since porn became more prevalent. Prostitutes (between 12 and 14) are the number one victims of rape.
So rapes may be decreasing, but sex trafficking has increased along with the prevalence of pornography. 7/10 prostitutes are raped (compared to 1/4 in the US).
SO now you have a new issue–prostitution and sex trafficking. Kids get kidnapped and forced into sex slavery and this correlates to the rising prevalence of porn.
In reply to Western Point of View
1. However the government defines an adult from place to place, I’ll go with it.
2. Again – it’s not banned, and this post is only about banning. Not regulating
4. With stuff like cardiovascular disease, the thinking is that you’re only hurting yourself so knock yourself out. You can get as drunk as you want in your own house as long as you don’t drink and drive when you can hurt other people.
There is a very physical and direct connection between drinking and driving. Reflexes slowed, danger not just to yourself, but to others and property. The (dubious) effects of porn on sexual crimes is way too nebulous for such a connection to be drawn and for it to be banned based on that alone. It’s just very poor policy.
In fact, you never hear of studies saying that alcohol doesn’t cause more traffic accidents. It’s a settled question. The link between porn and sexual crimes is so weak there are studies showing opposite things! For every study you link to trying to show a positive correlation between sexual crimes and porn, I can give you others showing the opposite. In other words, there is no consensus amongst the scientific community.
Even alcohol is not banned. So why double standards with porn?
In reply to bhagwad
it seems more along the lines of who is in power.
to cardiovascular diseases–lets say a company is using a certain type of fat (trans fat) that is KNOWN without question to sell its foods. It does not show up on its ingredients list as trans fat, but rather some vague description. By selling this product to an unknowing people, aren’t other people getting hurt?
getting drunk? You cannot get drunk in most public places (vegas being the exception)
cough syrup also has direct connections between driving as well, yet why isn’t cough syrup NEARLY as regulated as alcohol. What about benadryl? Benadryl isn’t regulated either.
You mention studies regarding the opposite, yet there are great studies showing linkages between prostitution and sexaul crimes. There are others showing the opposite regarding rape I agree, but the fact that sex trafficking is ballooning along with porn isn’t just funny.
but you are correct. Why regulate anything in the first place, such as porn? I’d say throw regulations out the window altogether.
btw with alchol, it differs from person to person. A white man can have 2-3 beers and show no effect. An indian man can have half a beer and show great signs of drunkennes. So where is the line?
Not all traffic accidents are caused by drunk driving. Some are caused by talking with passengers, for example. Should we also ban drivers from driving with other people?
In reply to Western Point of View
I think the government has pretty strict regulations on providing information to customers. The idea is that if people have all the information then what they do is up to them.
The world is a dangerous place. We might find studies showing that movies with guns decrease people’s sensitivity to guns and violence in general. We may then be able to draw links between movies with guns and prison populations.
In other words, there are a shit load of things that can influence us in a long term way based on human psychology. But to ban something the cause/effect relationship has to be much more immediate and direct. Like alcohol and drunk driving. Porn doesn’t even begin to meet the criteria.
Finally with regard to whites/indian etc drinking, the fact that there is debate about where to draw the line doesn’t mean that there is no line. Just take one line and stick to it.
In reply to bhagwad
This is what i’d like to talk about. It doesn’t have to do with porn, but regulations in a secular society in general.
Why regulate in the first place? Why should ANYTHING be regulated? There will always be some sort of study how this is bad and should be banned.
The world isn’t static, it is dynamic. It is always changing. One day we may even find that tobacco smoke is good for certain types of cancer patients just as marijuana is.
So why ban ANYTHING?
The government doesn’t necessarily have strict laws for providing consumers with anything. Scientists knew about tobacco for 100 years, yet the information did not get out to the general public until the late 70s.
If the line is so dynamic, why have it?
If I may suggest Bhagwad, maybe we should discuss why governments (secular) should be regulating us in the first place.
In reply to Western Point of View
While I can understand the sentiment of no regulations at all, I’m comfortable with the idea of minimal regulations for huge massive unequivocal and immediate benefits.
For example, without the regulations of traffic laws, driving would be a nightmare. So the minimal traffic regulations provide fantastic returns.
In reply to bhagwad
also bhagwad, this is just a parallel.
Drinking and driving leads to deaths, right?
Why not then ban guns and knives? Guns and knives kill plenty of people, right? Yet in India, ANYONE can buy a knife for cooking and guns are somewhat legal in the US.
I know this doesn’t have to do with porn, but again, this just brings me to the question–why does big brother need to mandate anything? Why can’t we just live without regulations? Life, liberty and the pursuit of property, that is it.
If i’m 5 years old and want to drink a beer, the government has no right to tell me otherwise. It is up to my parents. That’s all i’m saying
In reply to Western Point of View
If I had to guess, I would say that things like knives have several uses and using a knife to kill someone is a choice. I’m less clear on guns whose sole purpose is to inflict egregious harm.
Drinking and driving…no question that it clearly dangerous activity. Like I mentioned above, I’m ok with minimal regulations that provide such a huge immediate benefit.
In reply to Western Point of View
Bhagwad–well isn’t a level of chaos necessary?
Again, i don’t mean to get off the topic of porn, but you seem like a smart guy in terms of regulations.
Now for traffic, for example, why can’t the states or municipalities handle it the way they want? Why don’t THEY regulate within their own municipalities? Why even allow the federal government to get involved.
Just as an example, back in the 60s I believe, Minnesota wanted to pave their dividing lines yellow. These are the same dividing lines that go in the same flow of traffic as opposed to the opposite flow of traffic. The Fed said no, the lines must be white because yellow represents the opposite flow of traffic.
The reason why Minnesota didn’t want white was because in the winter time, the snow is so heavy, you cannot differntiate snow and the lane color. Yellow helps quite a bit. The fed still said no.
Shouldn’t states have ABSOLUTE discretion over their regulations? THe fact is California and Minnesota are different places. Why have standard regulations in such dynamic environments?
Traffic regulations are no more than mandates. If we removed FEDERAL level regulations, we would get much more streamlined approaches to transportation for example. More competition. More private roads instead of public. More efficiency.
Best way to go about this? Whoever owns the road makes the rules. At the same time, ANYBODY should have the right to make roads, including corporations like say Pepsi or private individuals (including mass highways). If local elected officials own the road, they make THEIR rules, not follow federal mandates.
Again I know this isn’t about porn, but regulations in general.
Why regulate ANYTHING including porn?
In reply to Western Point of View
Now we’re going off on a different tangent. Whether it’s the state, the community or the center, regulation is regulation. It doesn’t matter who does it. In any case, there is a vested interest in having the same traffic law everywhere because people move around all over the country and can’t be expected to be aware of every single difference in traffic laws from state to state.
But this is way too off topic – we can discuss regulations in general. Not who does the regulating.
In reply to Western Point of View
but that’s the thing–who does the regulating itself is important.
See we are kind of slaves to this “federal” thinking. The feds think they can mandate the laws however they want, but the fact is the ONLY need to mandate life, liberty and the pursuit of property.
The fed has as much of a right to regulate porn as they do to regulate traffic.
That is the state’s decision. If the state wants to ban porn, they have a right to do so as long as it doesn’t violate “liberty” for example.
“aware of every single difference in traffic laws from state to state.”
Why not? I am a consumer and as a driver, I am consuming a particular road. It is MY responsibility, as the consumer, to understand how to operate the consumed product, in this case, the road.
There are different bathroom cleaners, and some bathroom cleaners cannot be mixed with bleach for example. Otherwise I would die (drano and bleach mixed cause a noxious gas release that kills people).
So as a consumer of the road, no matter what state I’m in, it is MY responsibility to understannd the specific road situation.
What is nice about true capitalism is capitalism would come in and provide other resources–better public transportation, guides, private transportation, etc.
Again, I know this has nothing to do with porn, but if you think we shouldn’t be regulating porn, the same goes for traffic.
Eitehr regulate EVERYTHING or regulate nothing. The gray areas lead to more and more of a tyranical federal government that harasses in the name of “standards” or “peace.”
In reply to Western Point of View
Like I said, I don’t want to get into the question of who does the regulating. A subject for a different post maybe :)
If we want laws that ordinary mortals can understand, a certain amount of gray area is essential. If we were all gods capable of memorizing and thinking through each and every statute and created 203 exceptions to each rule, then we can have black or white rules.
As things stand though, gray areas are a practical convenience. I personally would not want to cross a road where my life depends on the driver’s memory of what color a pedestrian crossing should be in this particular area or neighborhood.
In reply to Western Point of View
Sure, but that “I would not want to cross the road” mentality leaves way for the federal government to run a police state. The gray areas are EXACTLY what they prey upon. It should be up to us as PRIVATE CITIZENS to take everything into our own hands.
If a local municipality makes a road, they have EVERY right to enact their own laws. DOn’t know the laws? don’t use the road. Its that simple. If you want to use a particular road, you as a consumer must do the homework just as a consumer who is health conscious needs to do his homework when wanting to get a burger at McDonald’s. It isn’t up to the fed, its up to the citizen.
Porn, drugs, medicine, roads, its all up to us.
All the fed nees to do is protect life, liberty and the pursuit of property.
Why should the government tell me as a private citizen what to do. If I am a billionaire and want to make my own highway, it is my right to do so, otherwise the fed is taking away my property rights. With that in mind, I also have the right to make up whatever rules I want. If you want to drive on my road, you have to abide by my rules.
If you do not know the rules, it is not my problem. It is yours.
Same with drano and bleach. Drano and bleach tell you that the combination is lethal. If you use them together, that is on you.
“Practicality” is what the fed preys on.
Again, I know this doesn’t have to do with porn (may i suggest another posting, jk lol hahaha). Read information on libertarianism and how they would go about such things.
The gray areas don’t help anyone. These gray areas just are more opportunities for fascism to arise. What is practical is for me, as a private citizen , to life my life according to life, liberty and the pursuit of property.
The rest of the rules–up to the municipality I chose to live in as a free thinking citizen of the US.
Again, this topic is now bigger than porn, but where do these regulations stop? Pretty soon, there may be regulations for me owning a gun (even though the constitution protects it) at the federal level. They already have banned certain automatic weapons. What’s to stop the fed from banning shot guns or pistols?
First porn, then what’s next? First traffic, then porn, then me owning a gun, to me ONLY being allowed to wear a specific type of cotton brand?
In reply to Western Point of View
Going too much off topic now.
In reply to bhagwad
sorry.
Well to sum it up, i’d say forget about “banning things” or regulating things or mandating things.
Porn, driving, whatever.
Let us be our own masters. Let the private citizen be his own master.
If you say we shouldn’t ban porn, then we should also not regulate traffic either (which we shouldn’t.)
Might i request a forum regarding governmental regulations, lol.
Just a thought ;)
Keep it real bro :)
But its not just “we Indians” who want to ban porn.
Feminists want to ban it too. In fact, this year on International Women’s Day, the EU Parliament was about
to pass a resolution for a Europe wide ban on porn. Fortunately, libertarians noticed it and the furore killed the resolution.
But it is indeed undeniable that the TOP feminist thinkers have been trying to get porn banned for quite a while now. I have never seen you rail against them. Is there a specific reason?
In reply to Abhishek
I haven’t gotten around to railing against them yet :) .
In any case all the feminists I know of are against banning porn. In fact, I’m not really aware of any powerful feminist movement (in the US at least) that talks of banning porn. Sure, there are off shoots and fringe groups but no mainstream movement that I’m aware of.
In reply to bhagwad
You have to be absolutely kidding me. The US has an extremely powerful feminist movement to ban porn, led from the front by the absolute top tier of the feminist movement, starting from Andrea Dworkin to Robin Morgan to Catherina McKinnon. These people are not fringe, these people are idols of the feminist movement.
Saying Andrea Dworkin or Robin Morgan is “fringe” when it comes to feminists is like saying Gandhi was a fringe element in India’s freedom struggle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_views_of_pornography
In reply to Abhishek
Funny, I was going to link the same wiki page :)
The fact of the matter is (as the page you linked to points out) that there is a pretty huge divide amongst feminists in the US about porn. Ultimately however, since personal liberty and freedom is one of the tenets of feminism, they will have to respect the rights of female porn stars to do with their body as they please.
In reply to bhagwad
I am glad you have learned that porn bans are not a fringe issue with feminists, they are one of major dividing lines, with TOP feminist intellectuals advocating strongly for porn bans. In the US, their efforts have mostly failed because of the First Amendment.
When censorship comes in the form of “traditional values”, we all know that it is just a matter of time before they lose. Traditionalists used to oppose de-segregation. They lost. They used to oppose inter-racial marriage. They lost. They used to oppose gay marriage. They are on the verge of losing. Its just all part of what the Germans call the “Zeitgeist”. I wouldn’t worry so much.
But feminism is the true poison because it is censorship and mind control coming to us dressed as “equality”.
In reply to Abhishek
I don’t understand how feminism can be equated with censorship.
In reply to bhagwad
Well, if feminism is advocating so strongly for …ummm…errr…censorship, what else are we expected to think? I was only expressing surprise that you forgot to include feminists when bashing the anti-porn idiots. My initial guess was that your obvious leftward slant made you spare them, but now it seems you weren’t aware of the massive anti-porn movement on the left. I was surprised you didn’t know, but well, now you do…
In reply to Abhishek
Saying “porn is not good” is not the same as wanting to ban it. I’ve replied to you below with a quote from your wiki article that you linked to.
Wow…you are some true chicken. Still so bitter about being exposed by me as a complete idiot on that atheism thread that you insta deleted my comment … LOL! Some thinker you are, much less a scientific thinker. Learn to take a little criticism and admit when you are wrong. You are some hi-fi atheist, no? Act like it :P But as I explained other day, your atheism is a religion and like an Asaram Bapu devotee, you can’t take the heat of criticism…told you :)
In reply to Abhishek
I deleted your comment because it was completely off topic and had nothing to do with my post. And you didn’t drop it either, you just went on and on. Like you’re trying to do now.
You’re more than welcome to be as critical as you want as long as it relates to the post in question. Not going off on a tangent and hijacking the discussion by repeatedly not taking a hint. Whether it’s deliberate or not, I want to keep the discussion on topic.
In reply to Abhishek
Atheism is not a religion. It is merely a lack of belief in God.
I don’t think porn should be banned for the simple reason that it’s impossible to do so. But I certainly think porn has a major problem today because most of it is aimed at fulfilling male fantasies. Even so-called female pornish literature such as 50 Shades of Grey is all about female submissiveness. Admittedly, it’s been years since I last saw porn and the situation might have changed, but I think it might be an idea to start catering to women.
In reply to Fem
Dear Bhagwad,
You can see the basics of the feminist pro-censorship argument in Fem’s post.
“But I certainly think porn has a major problem today because most of it is aimed at fulfilling male fantasies. Even so-called female pornish literature such as 50 Shades of Grey is all about female submissiveness. ”
There it is: fascism in the form of “equality”. While Fem is not advocating a ban, several top tier feminist intellectuals are. And their influence is only growing…
You will see that the traditionalist mafia actually has a LOT in common with the Left when it
comes to dictating others’ choices: banning porn, banning prostitution or accepting transgenders.
In reply to Abhishek
Come, be reasonable. It doesn’t matter if several prominent feminists are against porn if there are an equal number of them for it. From the same wiki article you linked to, there’s this paragraph:
“Many feminists regardless of their views on pornography are opposed on principle to censorship. Even many feminists who see pornography as a sexist institution, also see censorship (including MacKinnon’s civil law approach) as an evil”
And that’s why feminism is not censorship. They may not like porn, but they will never advocate banning it.
In reply to bhagwad
“And that’s why feminism is not censorship. They may not like porn, but they will never advocate banning it.”
I am sad you are so poorly informed. How about this:
1) Feminists in Iceland ban porn
http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/04/economist-explains-why-iceland-ban-pornography
2) Feminists in Iceland ban strip clubs
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/mar/25/iceland-most-feminist-country
3) In the UK, Feminists are using the “Equality Act” to threaten shops to stop selling
magazines like Playboy…or else…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22674928
4) Feminists try to get the EU Parliament to ban porn across the entire continent of Europe!
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/03/08/eu-porn-ban_n_2835991.html
Are you beginning to see the parallels between Taliban and feminism? Are you ready to take back
your line that feminists would “never advocate banning”? Clearly these are not fringe groups, these
are powerful feminists at the top echelons of government. Please accept the reality that you were wrong
and read up on feminism a little. Banning porn, strip clubs, prostitution etc have always been
on TOP of the feminist agenda, embraced by the most prominent feminists of the last 5 decades.
In reply to abhishek
The EU in general itself doesn’t have the same free speech protections that are available in the US. So if we’re going to discuss this we must narrow down who we’re talking about. The EU doesn’t allow “hate speech” whereas I feel it should be legal like it is in the US. Even violent video games are under the scanner.
So in the EU, it’s not just feminism but all other kinds of groups that are banning a lot more. Let’s not talk about “feminism” as if it’s a single monolithic entity around the world it’s not. The EU’s culture itself is such that they’re comfortable with banning free speech. This is not specific to feminism.
Since the US is the standard when it comes to freedom of expression around the world, let’s talk about feminism in the US. There is no (and never will be) any feminist movement in the US to ban pornography. They can talk about its ill effects, advocate that people not watch it etc. But not ban it.
Just because something happened in the EU doesn’t mean it’s representative of how things should be. As far as free speech issues are concerned, we have to look at the US as the sole benchmark.
In reply to bhagwad
That might be the most laughable excuse I have ever heard. Don’t worry, feminists aren’t for censorship because they are only picking on the soft targets in the EU right now!
Seriously…LOL!
In reply to Abhishek
The more laughable mistake I think is in assuming that there is just one “feminism” and that the activists in the EU are representative of the broader picture.
In reply to bhagwad
First of all, I had no idea the rights of hundreds of millions of people in the EU being systematically taken away by feminists is such a trivial matter.
Secondly, since when did it get so bad for the EU that you are saying that we can safely ignore what feminists do in the continent? I don’t know if you know this, but Europe does actually have tremendous economic, cultural, scientific and intellectual influence over the whole world…
It seems to me you are coming up with desperate arguments to save your embarrassment over the fact that you didn’t know anything about the vast anti-porn, anti-freedom core in the feminist movement. You shouldn’t be embarrassed…no one is supposed to know everything…
Yes, there isn’t “one feminism” just like there isn’t “one Islam”, but to pretend that what Islam does in the Middle East or feminism does in Europe is irrelevant seems really short sighted to me…
In reply to Abhishek
abishekh, i totally feel your pain regarding porn due to its immorality.
But in a secular society, what right does the government have to mandate anything except life liberty and the pursuit of property?
Why can’t the government leave private citizens alone?
Again this is in a secular, libertarian society.
In reply to Fem
My wife enjoyed “50 Shades of Gray” whereas I wouldn’t touch it. Men seem to be more visual and women like the written word a lot. But it’s gray (pun intended)!