Reply #144: I'm just asking a legitimate question. [View All]

Since porn "as it exists today" is unacceptable, apparently, what would constitute sexually explicit films or pictures of naked adults or naked adults having sex that you would consider acceptable?

See, I'm betting the answer is "Nothing. There is none".

I suspect the problem isn't that porn is "the FOX News of Sex", so much as it is that porn exists. Period.

Because believe me, I've been around enough Dworkin indoctrinates to know that when you get right down to it, it's heterosexual sex itself that is the "problem", at least "under Patriarchy" (which, as I've said before, is essentially the same thing as saying "in this solar system") ... As far as I can tell, there is NO WAY to present images of heterosexual penetrative sex that the Dworkin/MacKinnon crowd would find non-oppressive or non-exploitative because it is the heterosexual sex itself that is oppressive and exploitative.

Sure, if you've been told often enough that hetero sex is inherently coercive and violent, of course you're going to see violence in depictions of hetero sex, and you're not going to believe that women are capable of consenting to appear in them- because they're not really capable of consenting to penetrative sex with men, period.

I think it's disingenuous to make like the argument is not about censorship and is only about the implied messages supposedly contained in "mainstream porn", and then turn around (as you have done in this thread) and say that "consent of individual women is not relevant". Oh, really. How magnanamous of you to say that their own individual opinions don't matter. Look- if women are actually being forced into porn against their will, that's against the law. And it should be.

But if the basis for that argument is some kind of cockamamie Dworkinite Gibberish about how the "patriarchy" means no women consent to sex, ever, under any circumstances, I think you should cop to that, too.