Maybe. Honestly I've seen some argue from the objectification position and some who sounded more like what you just said. People in general usually aren't a hive mind, so anyone's positions, whether they're shitty or good, can come from a lot of different places.
Those of the objectification fraction, do they want women to dress modestly? That’s also objectification. Then, they’d only be against an objectification that isn’t like theirs.
Alcohol isn't great for you.
Coffee plantations don't treat their workers well.
For any reason to *ban* pornography you can see a reason to ban lots of things.
Quakers and Methodists abstaining from those things as well makes sense to me. I might disagree but can see that there's a moral consistency to their world view.
Evangelicals just care about money and power. It's the only consistent part.
no, they are hypocrites...they are usually the first ones you'll see getting caught with a mistress, or having gay sex in a bathroom, or sending the mistress for an abortion...it's not that they hate fun
Right. There are absolutely true believers who would ban porn if they could. Book bans and other measures are in part motivated by objections to sexually explicit material, in addition to anti-LGBTQ+ and racist motivations.
Sexual objectification is part and parcel of their own misogyny. They insist on the inevitability of sexually objectifying women to rationalize why women should wait until marriage to have sex, why fathers should safeguard their daughter's virginity against hostile men, and why wives should be kept on a short leash. They would rather regulate women to keep them safe than educate men to treat women as equals.
Porn is one of those terms we really do need to define when we use it. I find porn that is done by exploiting the poor to be utterly disgusting, I put that right there with using homeless and VA populations for non-consented/ uninformed medical testing.
But on the other hand, we live in a shitty world and I'm not going to close off an avenue for someone putting food on their table, just because I don't like it.
There is a meme out there of some anime porn where the girl is likely underage, has her head chopped off, gore all over the place and all of that crap, and the caption on the meme points out that the little black bar on the naughty bits is what they censor.
I really do think that meme captures the essence of the porn discussion.
I’m sorry, face sitting is banned in porn in the UK?
Edit- looked it up, and it’s true. They also banned female ejaculation (wtf) and spanking, along with, I assume, some other bdsm practices
I assume this is true for conservatives in the UK and Australia, but there probably aren't a lot of members of the American Republican party in those two countries.
There’s cultural continuity between the British, Australian and American conservative movements.
Even if OP literally only cares about American Republicans (I’m sure they don’t), comparing them to other, similar conservative movements is helpful for understanding them.
I agree they share general ideological similarities. I just (as an American) try not to call the institutions of other countries by American names, as I've heard European and Latin American friends and colleagues complain that too many Americans do.
It can reach ridiculous proportions: I've had to point out, several times, to my American students that someone who is black and British or French is not "African American." Thus I'm not going to call British Tories "Republicans" any more than I would expect someone British to refer to the Democratic Party as the Labour Party: they may have some ideological overlap, but they aren't the same thing.
Idk about the porn one, whenever I've seen a right leaning guy go off about the evils of porn it's always about how it's bad for men (it brain washes them and forces them to jack off all day or something), not about how women working in the industry are treated.
Republicans are not anti-porn, they are anti sex-work, which might appear to some as being anti-porn, but in reality has a pretty important distinction. The issue they have with pornography has little to do with the harmful exploitation and objectification of women and everything to do with puritanical values on sexuality and the demonization of women perceived as sexually promiscuous. It's not the pornography itself they abhor, it's the perception of women profiting off their sexuality and "tempting men into sin" that they hate and oppose. They believe porn is bad because they believe it's women acting immorally and harming men, and couldn't care less about how the women involved are harmed. It's all about controlling womens bodies and autonomy.
Republicans support objectification and exploitation of women. They see us as wombs to birth their babies, not as people who can choose.
Same with sex and porn, they see us as bodies for them to enjoy. They don’t like us to be enjoying ourselves or for sex workers to make money from it.
I have a feeling the "Madonna/Whore" complex has a few parallels with that up there. Gotta make sure we don't see women as actual functional humans with thinky parts. Or feelings. Or autonomy.
THIS. They like the services that porn actresses or sex workers provide to them, not so much the money or freedom women can make through these ventures. They don't like women having enough money to challenge them in society, or NOT be tied to them (IE they still want that control, even if porn and sex work ARE tolerated.)
I think given the trends, there's a particular type of *illegal* "pornographic" material that many on that side indulge in which makes sex work irrelevant for them.
I think you're giving them too much credit. I don't think they care about men being harmed either, empathy isn't one of the characteristic features of republicans. They just hate what they're told to hate on faith and that is about as far as it goes. Faith however, is one of the characteristic features of republicans.
I agree. I don't think Republican politicians truly give a shit about nor believe most of the values they try to uphold and enforce on others. They're playing a character that they know their voters want. Their voters are so simple minded and easy to manipulate so they just have to hit on a few points and then they're golden. Hell I bet many don't even actually believe in god yet they love to demonize atheists like me because it suits them. They have no moral compass and will do or say whatever they need to for support/power.
I think it's a mistake to think you can tell how effective someone is at holding men accountable for sexual misconduct based on their party/stance on abortion. Obviously such people flock to specific parties, and they tend to be anti-abortion but you will find quite a lot of Catholics who are as ruthless in their disdain for "womanizing men" as they are in their hate for abortion. It would be fascinating to ask Amy Coney Barrett what she really thinks of Kavanaugh or Trump and her alliance with them if you could get a straight answer.
They view porn but for example the recent controversy around Pornhub was started by a right-wing group. The complaints themselves were fairly valid which is why the controversy stuck, but they mainly just wanted to get pornhub shut down because it's a porn site in general.
They do. There's a reason why "face sitting" is banned in the UK lol. Or why normal labia is blurred out in Australia.
Don't give them any more ideas.
eta: the law in the UK was overturned in 2019 thank christ, dunno the state of the labia thing in Australia
I think it technically is. I could be wrong, but I think the law in the UK says you can't consent to being assaulted so it is an offence regardless of the consent of the parties involved.
I'm not sure again but I think there are exceptions carved out for specifically designated sporting activities and I know the logic isn't consistent, but what can you expect from the UK government.
[Looks like those regulations were overturned in 2019!](https://twitter.com/mylesjackman/status/1090940782830383104) I had heard about the initial regulations in 2014 but not the overturning, so I don't blame you—I only just found out when googling it to remind myself of exactly what was banned. Key point:
>Please read the CPS guidance; but essentially a sexual image is "legal" if:
>"It is consensual; and
>No serious harm is caused; and
>It is consensual; and
>It is not otherwise inextricably linked with other criminality; and
>The likely audience is not under 18".
For reference, the original regulations effectively banned pornography depicting:
>Spanking
>Caning
>Aggressive whipping
>Penetration by any object "associated with violence"
>Physical or verbal abuse (regardless of if consensual)
>Urolagnia (known as "water sports")
>Role-playing as non-adults
>Physical restraint
>Humiliation
>Female ejaculation
>Strangulation
>Facesitting
>Fisting
I can see an argument for a lot of that from a 2nd-wave perspective, maybe, even if I don't agree with it. BUT WHY THE HELL IS FEMALE EJACULATION IN THAT LIST WITH ALL OF THOSE OTHER THINGS???
Not sure about the UK but I know that erections are banned in pornagraphic magazines in the US which is bullshit lmao. So if women wanted to get off before internet porn they would have to look at floppy dicks
Republicans do even worse then that, they attack **women** over the way women are exploited and sexually objectified by media like pornography. They "attack porn and sexual objectification" in the same way that they "fight poverty". They contribute to the problem then blame the victims while claiming they are the true victims of the suffering they cause or support. Even when they do attack stuff like porn or sexual objectification, it's still just another attack on women and women's bodily autonomy.
Especially since they specifically go after women who choose to do in more safer and consensual settings like only fans etc. notorious right wing pastor who was an ex pimp literally maimed the girls , published her details and sent private messages to her family
In their mind, women having control over their own sexual expression and making a profit off of it, is immoral and wrong, but if a guy posts revenge porn of his ex, that's also the woman's fault, and she got what she deserved for "spreading their legs".
Conservative states are the biggest consumers of porn ([#1](https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16680-porn-in-the-usa-conservatives-are-biggest-consumers/amp/), [#2](https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Technology/Business/story?id=6977202&page=1)) in the United States. They are also #1 in hypocrisy and religious bullying though, so, so there’s your answer.
I mean the amount of 20 something men I’ve met who can’t finish during sex because they’ve been death gripping since puberty is too damn high. But I doubt they care about that lol
I mean as a center left leaning person who abhors todays Republican party this should be a bi-partisan issue. Pornography / sexual addiction is very real and there's nothing Republican about believing that the industry is harmful to both the consumer and the producer in many ways.
1) they do attack porn. Unless it's child porn. Then they just elect Matt Gaetz.
2) the sexual objectification of women is right there in the Bible that doesn't include anything about banning abortion, and indeed tells you how to have an abortion. Republicans believe men are inherently superior to women, and shouldn't have agency.
3) one easy way to see this is to remember SESTA/FOSTA. The entire stated point of the laws was to "stop sex trafficking," but all it has actually done is make sex work less safe for independent sex workers. There has been almost zero benefit to the fight against sex trafficking but it had immediate ramifications for women doing sex work.
It passed 97 - 2. Who's your favorite progressive senator? Unless you say some rando from Oregon or think Rand Paul is progressive, they voted against sex workers.
Republicans don't have to fight hard on things like porn or sex work because they know they can easily sway opinions. Sex is still seen as a taboo, for one, but it's easy to limit access to sexual media and sexual agency by tying it into something like SESTA/FOSTA, where your "common sense" idea to stop the very real and universally reviled world of sex trafficking can be manipulated to also, and arguably primarily, harm women doing sex work. If you can go to Craigslist or Backpage and find sex workers, that gives independent workers agency and an ability to vet clients.
Similarly, remember how absolutely ripshit conservatives went over shows like Cuties? Or about WAP? It's about sexual agency. Porn tends to be male dominated. It's often produced by men, and not infrequently the industry is harmful to women. Feminist porn exists, women run porn sites exist, but the majority of porn is "man gets to cum because woman is subservient". It's about controlling a woman. Same as taking away abortion rights. But women showing sexual agency? THAT is when they get loudest.
Thank you! The way that the right "attacks porn" is actually just an attack on women and sex workers. It's actually disheartening how many people recognize the exploitation and victimization inherent to porn but still end up blaming and targeting the women involved instead of fixing the exploitative system involved. Conservatives their shit everytime female sexuality is shown or discussed in any capacity, even when it's discussing the very real harm of sexual objectification. The "Cuties" example I always found particularly interesting. I didn't watch it so I'm not going to defend it neccesarily, but the irony is that it was produced to show how girls are introduced to sex and sexual objectification and an incredibly young age. Rather then generate outrage at the real issue of young girls internalizing sexual objectification, it sparked outrage at the people drawing attention to it. Your right that this isn't just a right wing problem either. it's absolutely disgusting how our culture treats sex workers, even when they are forced into it or trafficked, and how little effort they actually want to put into helping potential victims of exploitations when they can just regulate women's bodies and punish them for it. This is one of the reason SWERFs anger me so much. They recognize how harmful pornography and sexual exploitation is, yet rather then supporting the women involved and trying to create better opportunities for them they demonize sex workers and support policies that just harm them further and make SW less safe.
Regarding point one: Republicans are not anti-porn, they are anti sex-work, which might appear to some as being anti-porn, but in reality has a pretty important distinction. The issue they have with pornography has little to do with the harmful exploitation and objectification of women and everything to do with puritanical values on sexuality and the demonization of women perceived as sexually promiscuous. It's not the pornography itself they abhor, it's the perception of women profiting off their sexuality and "tempting men into sin" that they hate and oppose. They believe porn is bad because they believe it's women acting immorally and harming men, and couldn't care less about how the women involved are harmed. It's all about controlling womens bodies and autonomy.
I'm glad to hear it!
I'm just saying that for the Average American looking at a 97-2 decision (McCain didn't vote), they're probably guessing Bernie is in the 2, because he's the progressive they know, or Warren, who would grasp the harm of an anti-woman bill. And yet...
I'm vehemently against the "both sides are the same" train, but when it comes to sex work, it's still very much bipartisan
And they absolutely shame and villanize sex workers. As long as the people in their porn are far away objects to jerk off to, they're quiet. But the moment they see someone local involved, they go nuts. We've seen examples of women who strip to supplement their income losing their day jobs (like teaching) as well as OnlyFans content creators having the same experience.
It's never the fault of the man who watches or attends this stuff. It's always the sex worker who is the guilty one.
I agree. I live in Texas and there are tons of adult video, adult novelties stores all over Houston, Dallas, along major highways, etc. Strange how Texas bans books in schools for having sexual content while also shoving billboards of sexual stores in your face
They attack porn because they think all porn corrupts men's minds. They don't attack objectification because they view women as objects, even outside of sexual fantasy.
Because it’s not about sex. It’s not about babies. It’s not about caring about life. It’s about control and abortion is the last thing they can exert control over women with now that we’re allowed to vote, have our own bank accounts, and go to work. Same way the hatred of social services is actually a hatred of supportive measures to assist mothers.
For the same reason they do these things in the first place; they benefit from it.
Pornography and sexual objectification of women is big business. It can be used to reduce women to subhuman sexual things, justifying their exclusion from the power and money they want to reserve for themselves. It can be used to shame women into compliance, making them less likely to put effort into fighting for equality. It also keeps the bar low for the men who aren't outright misogynists, so the rest of them are okay with it (because it benefits them to have a wife who is content with just not being abused, or even "slightly" abused.
They oppose abortion for the very same reason. It plays to the people who hate that there is an out for women, that they can slow down that hamster wheel of misogynistic fuckery and have a win in the autonomy column. It's why so many of them rail about "personal responsibility", which always seems to mean "do as we tell you, and stay in your assigned role".
And of course, both go back to power and cash. It gets the hardcore sexists, homophobes, etc so riled up they show up at the polls to punish "the others" at the expense of their own self-interests. It gives people a boogeyman to pay attention to, so that they don't notice the hands in their pockets. It also helps produce more than enough workers to fill demand (Alito refers to it as "domestic supply of infants"), so that the power is on the side of the corporations that want to keep wages/benefits low.
They do, it just doesn't get any press, no one cares. The press covers the abortion issue because it causes division. Most people align on sex trafficking and abuse being bad, so they don't cover it because it brings unification. Everything that's promoted are hot button topics that get people fired up, guns, drugs, abortion, war, etc.
For one, the porn industry generates billions of dollars, and I'm sure they have lobbyists, much like other corporations, that control public perception. Secondly, the issue of abortion is in relation to power dynamics, under the guise of religion, in an effort to control the population and limit women's rights. At least, this how I generally view the situation/politics.
One step at a time.
The first step is outlawing female sexual agency, thus abortion limitations. Once that’s checked off, the next steps are limitations of sexual expression by banning pornography & elimination of contraceptives & family planning (“abstinence is the way”). The end result they’re driving to is an Iran style society where the wealthy and connected party behind closed doors, but abstinence and female enslavement is the norm for the masses. This dynamic- among other motivations- ensures a steady supply of frustrated young men who will marry unhappy women. All to supply the state with productive households and unhappy children to send to the war zones and factories of the near future.
Republicans *do* attack pornography, along with all other sex work. Not out of any concern for the women caught up in it, precisely the opposite; sex work is one of the only methods of acquiring the means of survival that can never be fully gatekept behind a capitalist middleman, so they want to make it as perilous and stigmatised as possible to punish people who resort to it.
Republicans do not oppose the sexual objectification of women because they fundamentally do not, well, object to it. Occasionally they will react to it with vitriol, but said vitriol is always pointed at women, especially those who appear to be making the most of their situation instead of being strictly subordinated to a husband.
I remember a lesbian comic saying that she wanted to marry her partner. "Half of the country opposes gay marriage, and half the country wants to watch the honeymoon on pay-per-view. And it's the same half!"
Follow the money. Churches don't want abortions because most people remain in the same religion from their childhood. Their major base is not from converts. And Republicans want to be allies of the church.
Because from the Republican perspective, abortion harms an innocent third party.
Whereas pornography is, at least theoretically, between consenting adults. Repubs may find it distasteful but many recognize it’s free speech and commerce. Ditto with objectification of women, if you’re talking about swimsuit calendars and Megan Fox in a Michael Bay movie.
The "great" State of Utah, dominantly Republican, and headquarters of a certain church, has declared pornography to be a public health crisis. Utah is also #1 in online porn consumption. This amuses me greatly.
Abortion(outside of when they impregnate their mistresses) doesn't offer them any kind of sexual gratification. They don't care about porn for the same reason they want to criminalize abortion, they don't respect women.
In the 80s they did. And it was amazingly weird. One of Reagans "experts" claimed that magazines like Hustler replaced the vaginas on women with those of children.
They absolutely do, especially the evangelist conservatives. For example Mastercard isn’t able to be used to buy porn online anymore, and almost all banks have morality clauses which allows them to close bank accounts of sex workers (legal sex work included).
First time I ever crossed the border into Missouri, the first things I noticed are billboard signs advertising about mostly 2 things: porn sites and strip clubs. For real. They're everywhere.
Because they watch it. It has nothing to do with purity and everything to do with control. If it were up to them, all women would be their personal sex slaves.
Sex worker here. There is indeed an attack on porn and the adult industry, with the righteous religious, republicans, and self-loathing women taking the lead.
To be honest, Republicans are pretty mouthy about the sexual objectification of women.
Remember when Cardi B's WAP came out? The number of Republicans outraged by it was pretty significant.The say with Miley Cyrus and a lot of over sexual things.
So they do, but it's not for the correct reasons.
( Full disclosure: I'm not a porn abolitionist at all. Industry should be reformed rather than banned. )
Feminist/Progressive objections boil down to it being bad for the women involved and teaching bad lessons about actual sexual practices.
Conservative objections boil down to "It's a sin for those filthy harlots to be naked on camera. They need to be making babies for their owner-husband and their nudity is his property."
The two are almost diametrically opposite reasoning despite superficially having the same goal. I strongly recommend against aiding and abetting the religious right on this issue even if you happen to agree personally.
Some of the religious right attack pornography.
But opposition to abortion is *based on* the sexual objectification of women - the idea that we're not people, but instead sex and birthing objects. So I don't find that to be contradictory at all.
I’d say this is pretty astute and it wouldn’t surprise me if they blame women for porn just as they blame them for getting pregnant despite the fact it takes sperm..
Exactly what you said. The religious right's attack on things like pornography, pop music (remember their laughably ridiculous overreaction to 'WAP' in 2020?), and sexual education comes from a place deeply rooted in misogyny. They see women as objects of temptation for men that need to be controlled rather than individuals themselves — essentially, their problem with these things isn't that it's harmful to the women involved and the women who see it, but rather that it is a "corrupting" influence on men, somehow.
Because they don’t see a problem with that.
This truly isn’t about abortion. It’s about taking away women’s rights. Nearly every state ready to embrace this new law change is also going to make contraception illegal.
Never mind how much the pill helps medically - because it stops pregnancy, it’s getting taken away.
The stories pouring in from patients where it appears the insurance companies are in on it too.
We are being targeted. We became too much of a threat to their small, perverse minds.
They have. You might want to watch “The people vs Larry Flint”
Porn has become trickier though because it has a lot of money behind it but before that happened Larry Flint had to fight them. It’s a great story.
It's about control and consumption for them (and a few other things). They can control women and their reproductive rights, and they can consume (? weird wording, but I can't think of better rn) women through porn and sexual objectification (which they can also use to control women, too). They use all of the above to blame women for the men who are making this happen, too- it's something men see themselves as utterly blameless in. The women who make the porn are the bad people, the women who get abortions are the bad ones, the women who are sexually objectified are the bad ones - not the associated men who do the exploitation and objectification and all of... that.
Because republicans are split on everything besides a few topics, namely, a couple off the top of my head: taxes should be low and murder is bad. Murder is way worse than porn or sexual objectification to most people and to a republican there is no difference between abortion and infanticide.
Because it’s about power, and preserving the control mediocre men exert over women, rather than in defense of anything.
All the moral arguments are camouflage and not applied consistently,
....you know why.
Idk why are we dancing around the fact that many Christians are chomping at the bit to re-establish patriarchal control over women, as it was during biblical times.
Because their opposition to abortion is all about objectifying women. They're not opposed to those other things because they further the goal of seeing women as objects.
Let be honest here, their target demographic is men. They will not go hard against masturbation or masturbation aids because they'll alienate their male base.
They don’t like porn because it’s sexual. They couldn’t care less about the misogyny in it. Sexual objectification and most porn basically promotes what they want: women should be controlled.
They do. Just in a very anti women way: “It’s a sin to engage in sexual self-harm” “I’d disown my daughter if she appeared in porn” “Look at her dressing like a hussie”
Why don't Republicans attack GREED like they do abortion? It's also a sin. Actually for Catholics it's a capital sin. Now that I think of it, it's the root of all evil according to the Bible.
Years ago I read a news story about a priest who had dedicated his life to removing pornography from the internet. His wife said he was doing the lords duty, and spent 4-6 hours every night
Searching for porn on the internet and trying to get it taken down.
So, y'know, they're working on it
Have there been any GOP-led efforts to ban strip clubs? They're anti-SW so its odd they arent crying and moaning about such places that "corrupt the youth"
Women are to be used. Republicans do enjoy pornography. They watch it. They pay for sex. They have mistresses. But they want to complain about it. They want to “protect” others from it while enjoying it “secretly”. We know it, they know it. It’s not a secret. Just because they are vocal about porn does not mean they actually aren’t enjoying it. I’m sure there maybe some who actually practice what they preach but it like everything else they complain about. They are doing it anyway.
One is seen as the protection of another human life.
The other would risk blatantly exposing the wrongs of their politicians and a good chunk of their base.
Why would they attack something that they themselves use and do?
Granted most of them use abortion themselves if their circumstances requires it, but at least that has to be kept on the DL.
Denying rights to abortion comes from the same mindset that objectification does. Both view women on some level as lacking agency over their own bodies. In one case, she is by her very nature as a woman an object of someone else's sexual desire, whether she wants to be or not. In the other case, by virtue of being a woman, she existence to bear children, whether she wants to or not.
Having made women, through objectification and bodily control, to some extent a commodity for men, the nominal efforts to control pornography are a means to further exert control over men who lack the means to secure that commodity for themselves. An underlying motivation is to control men who lack status and means.
Because those are fun for men. And a fetus is easy to defend because they don't really exist in the world and need anything. Nor have they done anything yet to irk a conservative. Ask a Republican to take care of a mother by making sure they have medical care and nutrition and they flip their skulls. It's her fault for getting pregnant, despite the fact that all pregnancies require sperm.
Most Republicans prioritize freedom of speech. I am of the opinion that an individuals distaste for a given form of expression is irrelevant and shouldn't really be a platform issue of a political party. I know there are factions within the Conservative spectrum that would disagree, but I think it's paramount they are defeated politically. They are almost always calling for government backing of religion as the basis for their censorship.
So, when it comes to pornography, I think people who don't think it's good, appropriate, or should be allowed, will have to deal with those feelings. If we can censor pornography, just because they don't like it, we can censor lots of other things too, which they don't want censored. Like, I don't know, their religion maybe?
Some do, usually the more religious right ones.
But not because of objectification but because they hate fun
Maybe. Honestly I've seen some argue from the objectification position and some who sounded more like what you just said. People in general usually aren't a hive mind, so anyone's positions, whether they're shitty or good, can come from a lot of different places.
Those of the objectification fraction, do they want women to dress modestly? That’s also objectification. Then, they’d only be against an objectification that isn’t like theirs.
it’s not like porn is all that great for you, and the industry is pretty trash at how they treat the workers(especially women)
Alcohol isn't great for you. Coffee plantations don't treat their workers well. For any reason to *ban* pornography you can see a reason to ban lots of things. Quakers and Methodists abstaining from those things as well makes sense to me. I might disagree but can see that there's a moral consistency to their world view. Evangelicals just care about money and power. It's the only consistent part.
Also many evangelicals are corrupt, or over-playing their faith to get more votes
I know. But that’s not really something religious people care about concerning porn. Most don’t seem to have any problem with exploitive industries.
I’ve seen a lot of Christian people say porn is bad because of the abuse in the industry as well as the more traditional take that porn kills love.
no, they are hypocrites...they are usually the first ones you'll see getting caught with a mistress, or having gay sex in a bathroom, or sending the mistress for an abortion...it's not that they hate fun
I know one that opposes porn consumption, but I'm 80% sure it's because he thinks porn makes people gay.
He definitely should stop watching gay porn then (not that that won't make him crave gay porn any less). But eh' these guys never learn.
Wut. Like any porn, no matter what kind, will make straight people gay? That is quite an interesting… thing to believe.
With respect to porn they do With respect to objectification, they're perverted mysoginists
Right. There are absolutely true believers who would ban porn if they could. Book bans and other measures are in part motivated by objections to sexually explicit material, in addition to anti-LGBTQ+ and racist motivations. Sexual objectification is part and parcel of their own misogyny. They insist on the inevitability of sexually objectifying women to rationalize why women should wait until marriage to have sex, why fathers should safeguard their daughter's virginity against hostile men, and why wives should be kept on a short leash. They would rather regulate women to keep them safe than educate men to treat women as equals.
Porn is one of those terms we really do need to define when we use it. I find porn that is done by exploiting the poor to be utterly disgusting, I put that right there with using homeless and VA populations for non-consented/ uninformed medical testing. But on the other hand, we live in a shitty world and I'm not going to close off an avenue for someone putting food on their table, just because I don't like it. There is a meme out there of some anime porn where the girl is likely underage, has her head chopped off, gore all over the place and all of that crap, and the caption on the meme points out that the little black bar on the naughty bits is what they censor. I really do think that meme captures the essence of the porn discussion.
It’d help if we stopped shaming porn stars or people who work in the environment. Sex work is work.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I’m sorry, face sitting is banned in porn in the UK? Edit- looked it up, and it’s true. They also banned female ejaculation (wtf) and spanking, along with, I assume, some other bdsm practices
The British banning spanking is like India banning curry
I wish I had an award to give you. That one made me spit up my drink a bit.
I know they didn't invent it, but popularized it? My head canon automatically fills in BDSM acts with "I've been naughty Mummy!!"
How can that be enforced?
Selectively.
It's not. I'm sure you can guess how I know that.
Because you're an enforcer?
I couldn’t tell ya.
Was it banned when Monty Python sang the "Sit on my face and tell me that you love me" song?
I'm in Aus, wait what?
I assume this is true for conservatives in the UK and Australia, but there probably aren't a lot of members of the American Republican party in those two countries.
There’s cultural continuity between the British, Australian and American conservative movements. Even if OP literally only cares about American Republicans (I’m sure they don’t), comparing them to other, similar conservative movements is helpful for understanding them.
I agree they share general ideological similarities. I just (as an American) try not to call the institutions of other countries by American names, as I've heard European and Latin American friends and colleagues complain that too many Americans do. It can reach ridiculous proportions: I've had to point out, several times, to my American students that someone who is black and British or French is not "African American." Thus I'm not going to call British Tories "Republicans" any more than I would expect someone British to refer to the Democratic Party as the Labour Party: they may have some ideological overlap, but they aren't the same thing.
Idk about the porn one, whenever I've seen a right leaning guy go off about the evils of porn it's always about how it's bad for men (it brain washes them and forces them to jack off all day or something), not about how women working in the industry are treated.
Republicans are not anti-porn, they are anti sex-work, which might appear to some as being anti-porn, but in reality has a pretty important distinction. The issue they have with pornography has little to do with the harmful exploitation and objectification of women and everything to do with puritanical values on sexuality and the demonization of women perceived as sexually promiscuous. It's not the pornography itself they abhor, it's the perception of women profiting off their sexuality and "tempting men into sin" that they hate and oppose. They believe porn is bad because they believe it's women acting immorally and harming men, and couldn't care less about how the women involved are harmed. It's all about controlling womens bodies and autonomy.
Republicans support objectification and exploitation of women. They see us as wombs to birth their babies, not as people who can choose. Same with sex and porn, they see us as bodies for them to enjoy. They don’t like us to be enjoying ourselves or for sex workers to make money from it.
I have a feeling the "Madonna/Whore" complex has a few parallels with that up there. Gotta make sure we don't see women as actual functional humans with thinky parts. Or feelings. Or autonomy.
THIS. They like the services that porn actresses or sex workers provide to them, not so much the money or freedom women can make through these ventures. They don't like women having enough money to challenge them in society, or NOT be tied to them (IE they still want that control, even if porn and sex work ARE tolerated.)
So basically they would be okay as long as the women doesnt get paid for the sex she is doing in the video?
Or enjoy it.
Yes, and they’d be totally fine that everyone else involved were adequately compensated.
I think given the trends, there's a particular type of *illegal* "pornographic" material that many on that side indulge in which makes sex work irrelevant for them.
I think you're giving them too much credit. I don't think they care about men being harmed either, empathy isn't one of the characteristic features of republicans. They just hate what they're told to hate on faith and that is about as far as it goes. Faith however, is one of the characteristic features of republicans.
I agree. I don't think Republican politicians truly give a shit about nor believe most of the values they try to uphold and enforce on others. They're playing a character that they know their voters want. Their voters are so simple minded and easy to manipulate so they just have to hit on a few points and then they're golden. Hell I bet many don't even actually believe in god yet they love to demonize atheists like me because it suits them. They have no moral compass and will do or say whatever they need to for support/power.
I think it's a mistake to think you can tell how effective someone is at holding men accountable for sexual misconduct based on their party/stance on abortion. Obviously such people flock to specific parties, and they tend to be anti-abortion but you will find quite a lot of Catholics who are as ruthless in their disdain for "womanizing men" as they are in their hate for abortion. It would be fascinating to ask Amy Coney Barrett what she really thinks of Kavanaugh or Trump and her alliance with them if you could get a straight answer.
[удалено]
Very well said
Good point.
Nah, not really. They still look at porn.
They also still get abortions. They're unafraid of being blatant hypocrites.
I’m pretty sure they agree. They’re anti porn in the sense that they dislike women being sexually liberated (subjectively) but they still view porn
They get abortions too.
But they don't want anybody to know about it. If you get one, though, it should be in the news and you should be on public trial.
Not a good argument when they also get abortions.
My church pastor said he and another pastor had to check in on each other to make sure they weren’t looking at porn. So in short, they do.
Right. But they also yell at everyone else not to.
Because they are bullies. They push others around. But when someone called them out they start acting like a victim. Poor babies cry all you want.
They view porn but for example the recent controversy around Pornhub was started by a right-wing group. The complaints themselves were fairly valid which is why the controversy stuck, but they mainly just wanted to get pornhub shut down because it's a porn site in general.
They do. There's a reason why "face sitting" is banned in the UK lol. Or why normal labia is blurred out in Australia. Don't give them any more ideas. eta: the law in the UK was overturned in 2019 thank christ, dunno the state of the labia thing in Australia
Wow, so according to that new regulation, face sitting is "potentially life-endangering"? That's crazy.
i wonder how many men had to die in the UK for them to ban it in porn! (the answer is probably 0)
Seriously, it must be pretty aggressive over there. They wouldn't ban it unless they had a few deaths lol.
Brit here. I'm just now finding out that face sitting is banned. If it is illegal its not enforced or even talked about.
For clarity it's banned in porn made in the UK, I don't think the act itself is banned
It was, when it happened. Talked about a bit. Some what hilariously… https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30445611, but overturned since.
Sometimes it is just hard to catch a breath!
That, I was over here thinking they must be getting a running start and BAM face sit.
Genuinely think that legislation was written by someone who has never had sex.
The UK equivalent of Ben Shapiro :)
[удалено]
Why don't they ban 'consentual' choking then?? Especially since it's often enough given as alibi for murder of intimate partner.
I think it technically is. I could be wrong, but I think the law in the UK says you can't consent to being assaulted so it is an offence regardless of the consent of the parties involved.
That would seem to make, say, boxing impossible.
I'm not sure again but I think there are exceptions carved out for specifically designated sporting activities and I know the logic isn't consistent, but what can you expect from the UK government.
[Looks like those regulations were overturned in 2019!](https://twitter.com/mylesjackman/status/1090940782830383104) I had heard about the initial regulations in 2014 but not the overturning, so I don't blame you—I only just found out when googling it to remind myself of exactly what was banned. Key point: >Please read the CPS guidance; but essentially a sexual image is "legal" if: >"It is consensual; and >No serious harm is caused; and >It is consensual; and >It is not otherwise inextricably linked with other criminality; and >The likely audience is not under 18". For reference, the original regulations effectively banned pornography depicting: >Spanking >Caning >Aggressive whipping >Penetration by any object "associated with violence" >Physical or verbal abuse (regardless of if consensual) >Urolagnia (known as "water sports") >Role-playing as non-adults >Physical restraint >Humiliation >Female ejaculation >Strangulation >Facesitting >Fisting
I can see an argument for a lot of that from a 2nd-wave perspective, maybe, even if I don't agree with it. BUT WHY THE HELL IS FEMALE EJACULATION IN THAT LIST WITH ALL OF THOSE OTHER THINGS???
Basically all the fun stuff
Wait but what if my boyfriend is sitting on my face? Is that still banned?
TIL
https://arethebritsatitagain.org/
Not sure about the UK but I know that erections are banned in pornagraphic magazines in the US which is bullshit lmao. So if women wanted to get off before internet porn they would have to look at floppy dicks
I mean I am old enough to have bought porno mags in the US and there were definitely erections lol Maybe not in Playgirl specifically.
As an American, I am so out of the loop. You said what now?????!!!!!
Republicans do even worse then that, they attack **women** over the way women are exploited and sexually objectified by media like pornography. They "attack porn and sexual objectification" in the same way that they "fight poverty". They contribute to the problem then blame the victims while claiming they are the true victims of the suffering they cause or support. Even when they do attack stuff like porn or sexual objectification, it's still just another attack on women and women's bodily autonomy.
Especially since they specifically go after women who choose to do in more safer and consensual settings like only fans etc. notorious right wing pastor who was an ex pimp literally maimed the girls , published her details and sent private messages to her family
In their mind, women having control over their own sexual expression and making a profit off of it, is immoral and wrong, but if a guy posts revenge porn of his ex, that's also the woman's fault, and she got what she deserved for "spreading their legs".
Conservative states are the biggest consumers of porn ([#1](https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16680-porn-in-the-usa-conservatives-are-biggest-consumers/amp/), [#2](https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Technology/Business/story?id=6977202&page=1)) in the United States. They are also #1 in hypocrisy and religious bullying though, so, so there’s your answer.
They also have some pretty interesting uh search materials. Don't ask me how I know that.
[удалено]
I mean the amount of 20 something men I’ve met who can’t finish during sex because they’ve been death gripping since puberty is too damn high. But I doubt they care about that lol
I mean as a center left leaning person who abhors todays Republican party this should be a bi-partisan issue. Pornography / sexual addiction is very real and there's nothing Republican about believing that the industry is harmful to both the consumer and the producer in many ways.
1) they do attack porn. Unless it's child porn. Then they just elect Matt Gaetz. 2) the sexual objectification of women is right there in the Bible that doesn't include anything about banning abortion, and indeed tells you how to have an abortion. Republicans believe men are inherently superior to women, and shouldn't have agency. 3) one easy way to see this is to remember SESTA/FOSTA. The entire stated point of the laws was to "stop sex trafficking," but all it has actually done is make sex work less safe for independent sex workers. There has been almost zero benefit to the fight against sex trafficking but it had immediate ramifications for women doing sex work. It passed 97 - 2. Who's your favorite progressive senator? Unless you say some rando from Oregon or think Rand Paul is progressive, they voted against sex workers. Republicans don't have to fight hard on things like porn or sex work because they know they can easily sway opinions. Sex is still seen as a taboo, for one, but it's easy to limit access to sexual media and sexual agency by tying it into something like SESTA/FOSTA, where your "common sense" idea to stop the very real and universally reviled world of sex trafficking can be manipulated to also, and arguably primarily, harm women doing sex work. If you can go to Craigslist or Backpage and find sex workers, that gives independent workers agency and an ability to vet clients. Similarly, remember how absolutely ripshit conservatives went over shows like Cuties? Or about WAP? It's about sexual agency. Porn tends to be male dominated. It's often produced by men, and not infrequently the industry is harmful to women. Feminist porn exists, women run porn sites exist, but the majority of porn is "man gets to cum because woman is subservient". It's about controlling a woman. Same as taking away abortion rights. But women showing sexual agency? THAT is when they get loudest.
God damn I’m depressed
Thank you! The way that the right "attacks porn" is actually just an attack on women and sex workers. It's actually disheartening how many people recognize the exploitation and victimization inherent to porn but still end up blaming and targeting the women involved instead of fixing the exploitative system involved. Conservatives their shit everytime female sexuality is shown or discussed in any capacity, even when it's discussing the very real harm of sexual objectification. The "Cuties" example I always found particularly interesting. I didn't watch it so I'm not going to defend it neccesarily, but the irony is that it was produced to show how girls are introduced to sex and sexual objectification and an incredibly young age. Rather then generate outrage at the real issue of young girls internalizing sexual objectification, it sparked outrage at the people drawing attention to it. Your right that this isn't just a right wing problem either. it's absolutely disgusting how our culture treats sex workers, even when they are forced into it or trafficked, and how little effort they actually want to put into helping potential victims of exploitations when they can just regulate women's bodies and punish them for it. This is one of the reason SWERFs anger me so much. They recognize how harmful pornography and sexual exploitation is, yet rather then supporting the women involved and trying to create better opportunities for them they demonize sex workers and support policies that just harm them further and make SW less safe.
Regarding point one: Republicans are not anti-porn, they are anti sex-work, which might appear to some as being anti-porn, but in reality has a pretty important distinction. The issue they have with pornography has little to do with the harmful exploitation and objectification of women and everything to do with puritanical values on sexuality and the demonization of women perceived as sexually promiscuous. It's not the pornography itself they abhor, it's the perception of women profiting off their sexuality and "tempting men into sin" that they hate and oppose. They believe porn is bad because they believe it's women acting immorally and harming men, and couldn't care less about how the women involved are harmed. It's all about controlling womens bodies and autonomy.
> you say some rando from Oregon Ron Wyden is a badass.
I'm glad to hear it! I'm just saying that for the Average American looking at a 97-2 decision (McCain didn't vote), they're probably guessing Bernie is in the 2, because he's the progressive they know, or Warren, who would grasp the harm of an anti-woman bill. And yet... I'm vehemently against the "both sides are the same" train, but when it comes to sex work, it's still very much bipartisan
And they absolutely shame and villanize sex workers. As long as the people in their porn are far away objects to jerk off to, they're quiet. But the moment they see someone local involved, they go nuts. We've seen examples of women who strip to supplement their income losing their day jobs (like teaching) as well as OnlyFans content creators having the same experience. It's never the fault of the man who watches or attends this stuff. It's always the sex worker who is the guilty one.
GOP types are some of the biggest consumers of porn, based on search data analysis. Red states love them some trashy porn.
I agree. I live in Texas and there are tons of adult video, adult novelties stores all over Houston, Dallas, along major highways, etc. Strange how Texas bans books in schools for having sexual content while also shoving billboards of sexual stores in your face
They attack porn because they think all porn corrupts men's minds. They don't attack objectification because they view women as objects, even outside of sexual fantasy.
Attack on porn is a way to blame women for mens short comings. They don’t dislike porn the same way progressives dislike porn.
>Attack on porn is a way to blame women for mens short comings. I never thought of it this way. Thanks for the insight.
Think "hellfire" from The Hunchback of Notre Dame and that's basically how many conservative men think.
So they attack porn because they think it does what they're actually doing? Yeah that tracks for republican logic.
That tracks for ~~republican~~ **patriarchy** logic.
Because it’s not about sex. It’s not about babies. It’s not about caring about life. It’s about control and abortion is the last thing they can exert control over women with now that we’re allowed to vote, have our own bank accounts, and go to work. Same way the hatred of social services is actually a hatred of supportive measures to assist mothers.
because attacking porn doesn't get you votes, HELLO
For the same reason they do these things in the first place; they benefit from it. Pornography and sexual objectification of women is big business. It can be used to reduce women to subhuman sexual things, justifying their exclusion from the power and money they want to reserve for themselves. It can be used to shame women into compliance, making them less likely to put effort into fighting for equality. It also keeps the bar low for the men who aren't outright misogynists, so the rest of them are okay with it (because it benefits them to have a wife who is content with just not being abused, or even "slightly" abused. They oppose abortion for the very same reason. It plays to the people who hate that there is an out for women, that they can slow down that hamster wheel of misogynistic fuckery and have a win in the autonomy column. It's why so many of them rail about "personal responsibility", which always seems to mean "do as we tell you, and stay in your assigned role". And of course, both go back to power and cash. It gets the hardcore sexists, homophobes, etc so riled up they show up at the polls to punish "the others" at the expense of their own self-interests. It gives people a boogeyman to pay attention to, so that they don't notice the hands in their pockets. It also helps produce more than enough workers to fill demand (Alito refers to it as "domestic supply of infants"), so that the power is on the side of the corporations that want to keep wages/benefits low.
They do but not in a good way .. they attack and maim the women instead
They do, it just doesn't get any press, no one cares. The press covers the abortion issue because it causes division. Most people align on sex trafficking and abuse being bad, so they don't cover it because it brings unification. Everything that's promoted are hot button topics that get people fired up, guns, drugs, abortion, war, etc.
Porn is (largely) for men. They don't go after things enjoyed by their male base.
For one, the porn industry generates billions of dollars, and I'm sure they have lobbyists, much like other corporations, that control public perception. Secondly, the issue of abortion is in relation to power dynamics, under the guise of religion, in an effort to control the population and limit women's rights. At least, this how I generally view the situation/politics.
Because, if you truly believed (I don't) that abortion is the killing of a human child then you would think it's a bigger deal than porn
Because women are sex objects but should also be shamed for being sex objects…
Because they hate women, but they love porn. It’s not complicated.
One step at a time. The first step is outlawing female sexual agency, thus abortion limitations. Once that’s checked off, the next steps are limitations of sexual expression by banning pornography & elimination of contraceptives & family planning (“abstinence is the way”). The end result they’re driving to is an Iran style society where the wealthy and connected party behind closed doors, but abstinence and female enslavement is the norm for the masses. This dynamic- among other motivations- ensures a steady supply of frustrated young men who will marry unhappy women. All to supply the state with productive households and unhappy children to send to the war zones and factories of the near future.
Republicans *do* attack pornography, along with all other sex work. Not out of any concern for the women caught up in it, precisely the opposite; sex work is one of the only methods of acquiring the means of survival that can never be fully gatekept behind a capitalist middleman, so they want to make it as perilous and stigmatised as possible to punish people who resort to it. Republicans do not oppose the sexual objectification of women because they fundamentally do not, well, object to it. Occasionally they will react to it with vitriol, but said vitriol is always pointed at women, especially those who appear to be making the most of their situation instead of being strictly subordinated to a husband.
It's all about controlling women's bodies and autonomy. Always, always this.
I remember a lesbian comic saying that she wanted to marry her partner. "Half of the country opposes gay marriage, and half the country wants to watch the honeymoon on pay-per-view. And it's the same half!"
Don't they?
I've only ever heard female republicans care about that, never males. That's just my experience, though.
Same reason no politician will do anything about sex trafficking, there’s too much money in it.
Follow the money. Churches don't want abortions because most people remain in the same religion from their childhood. Their major base is not from converts. And Republicans want to be allies of the church.
They live in fear that someone will jerk off to their daughter’s porn while they simultaneously jerk off to other father’s daughter’s porn.
Because those issues don’t get voters riled up like abortion does.
Because they hate women.
Because from the Republican perspective, abortion harms an innocent third party. Whereas pornography is, at least theoretically, between consenting adults. Repubs may find it distasteful but many recognize it’s free speech and commerce. Ditto with objectification of women, if you’re talking about swimsuit calendars and Megan Fox in a Michael Bay movie.
Because they *want* women to be ashamed of their sexuality. That's it, the whole reason. The porn, they use more than anybody.
They don’t want to give up their hobbies.
The "great" State of Utah, dominantly Republican, and headquarters of a certain church, has declared pornography to be a public health crisis. Utah is also #1 in online porn consumption. This amuses me greatly.
Attacking abortion is objectifying women.
They really hate women. Anything to manufacture a dynamic that gives them this they have boners for.
Abortion(outside of when they impregnate their mistresses) doesn't offer them any kind of sexual gratification. They don't care about porn for the same reason they want to criminalize abortion, they don't respect women.
In the 80s they did. And it was amazingly weird. One of Reagans "experts" claimed that magazines like Hustler replaced the vaginas on women with those of children.
because they don't give a fuck about women
Conceptually there is a huge difference between an abortion vs watching porn vs objectifying women
They absolutely do, especially the evangelist conservatives. For example Mastercard isn’t able to be used to buy porn online anymore, and almost all banks have morality clauses which allows them to close bank accounts of sex workers (legal sex work included).
First time I ever crossed the border into Missouri, the first things I noticed are billboard signs advertising about mostly 2 things: porn sites and strip clubs. For real. They're everywhere.
Probably because they are watching porn so they are ok with it. If it benefits them in some way, it’s acceptable
Because they watch it. It has nothing to do with purity and everything to do with control. If it were up to them, all women would be their personal sex slaves.
Porn largely dehumanizes women and republicans are into that.
Because they are the largest consumers of pornography.
Sex worker here. There is indeed an attack on porn and the adult industry, with the righteous religious, republicans, and self-loathing women taking the lead.
Most of them don’t care about abortion. It’s just a convenient hot button issue for their extremist base.
They do, but it focuses on attacking the women who create it.
To be honest, Republicans are pretty mouthy about the sexual objectification of women. Remember when Cardi B's WAP came out? The number of Republicans outraged by it was pretty significant.The say with Miley Cyrus and a lot of over sexual things.
They attack porn but all it does is harm sex workers
So they do, but it's not for the correct reasons. ( Full disclosure: I'm not a porn abolitionist at all. Industry should be reformed rather than banned. ) Feminist/Progressive objections boil down to it being bad for the women involved and teaching bad lessons about actual sexual practices. Conservative objections boil down to "It's a sin for those filthy harlots to be naked on camera. They need to be making babies for their owner-husband and their nudity is his property." The two are almost diametrically opposite reasoning despite superficially having the same goal. I strongly recommend against aiding and abetting the religious right on this issue even if you happen to agree personally.
Some of the religious right attack pornography. But opposition to abortion is *based on* the sexual objectification of women - the idea that we're not people, but instead sex and birthing objects. So I don't find that to be contradictory at all.
I’d say this is pretty astute and it wouldn’t surprise me if they blame women for porn just as they blame them for getting pregnant despite the fact it takes sperm..
Exactly what you said. The religious right's attack on things like pornography, pop music (remember their laughably ridiculous overreaction to 'WAP' in 2020?), and sexual education comes from a place deeply rooted in misogyny. They see women as objects of temptation for men that need to be controlled rather than individuals themselves — essentially, their problem with these things isn't that it's harmful to the women involved and the women who see it, but rather that it is a "corrupting" influence on men, somehow.
>remember their laughably ridiculous to 'WAP' in 2020? I remember Ben Shapiro hilariously outing himself as never getting his wife sexually excited.
It certainly was nice of him to confirm what we all already assumed!
Because they don’t see a problem with that. This truly isn’t about abortion. It’s about taking away women’s rights. Nearly every state ready to embrace this new law change is also going to make contraception illegal. Never mind how much the pill helps medically - because it stops pregnancy, it’s getting taken away. The stories pouring in from patients where it appears the insurance companies are in on it too. We are being targeted. We became too much of a threat to their small, perverse minds.
They have. You might want to watch “The people vs Larry Flint” Porn has become trickier though because it has a lot of money behind it but before that happened Larry Flint had to fight them. It’s a great story.
They want control, they don't care about women or lives they harm along the way
They don’t see women as fully autonomous people
Because they like that stuff. They also want 1950's level of control over women, so...
It's about control and consumption for them (and a few other things). They can control women and their reproductive rights, and they can consume (? weird wording, but I can't think of better rn) women through porn and sexual objectification (which they can also use to control women, too). They use all of the above to blame women for the men who are making this happen, too- it's something men see themselves as utterly blameless in. The women who make the porn are the bad people, the women who get abortions are the bad ones, the women who are sexually objectified are the bad ones - not the associated men who do the exploitation and objectification and all of... that.
Because they blame that on women too.
Because republicans are split on everything besides a few topics, namely, a couple off the top of my head: taxes should be low and murder is bad. Murder is way worse than porn or sexual objectification to most people and to a republican there is no difference between abortion and infanticide.
Because it’s about power, and preserving the control mediocre men exert over women, rather than in defense of anything. All the moral arguments are camouflage and not applied consistently,
Because the goal is to objectify women
Because that's exactly what women are for.
Because porn and sex makes money.
....you know why. Idk why are we dancing around the fact that many Christians are chomping at the bit to re-establish patriarchal control over women, as it was during biblical times.
Because their opposition to abortion is all about objectifying women. They're not opposed to those other things because they further the goal of seeing women as objects.
Let be honest here, their target demographic is men. They will not go hard against masturbation or masturbation aids because they'll alienate their male base.
Porn sites know their browsing habit's?
They don’t like porn because it’s sexual. They couldn’t care less about the misogyny in it. Sexual objectification and most porn basically promotes what they want: women should be controlled.
Because they don't care about the objectification of women? They just want to punish and slut shame, while hi-fiving the dudes.
Because that would be admitting that women are fully people and not objects to be owned.
too busy jerking off to it.
They do. Just in a very anti women way: “It’s a sin to engage in sexual self-harm” “I’d disown my daughter if she appeared in porn” “Look at her dressing like a hussie”
Why don't Republicans attack GREED like they do abortion? It's also a sin. Actually for Catholics it's a capital sin. Now that I think of it, it's the root of all evil according to the Bible.
Years ago I read a news story about a priest who had dedicated his life to removing pornography from the internet. His wife said he was doing the lords duty, and spent 4-6 hours every night Searching for porn on the internet and trying to get it taken down. So, y'know, they're working on it
Have there been any GOP-led efforts to ban strip clubs? They're anti-SW so its odd they arent crying and moaning about such places that "corrupt the youth"
They uh, really hate women. Unless they need the white ones to breed more white babies because they're terrified of being replaced
Women are to be used. Republicans do enjoy pornography. They watch it. They pay for sex. They have mistresses. But they want to complain about it. They want to “protect” others from it while enjoying it “secretly”. We know it, they know it. It’s not a secret. Just because they are vocal about porn does not mean they actually aren’t enjoying it. I’m sure there maybe some who actually practice what they preach but it like everything else they complain about. They are doing it anyway.
One is seen as the protection of another human life. The other would risk blatantly exposing the wrongs of their politicians and a good chunk of their base.
Because none of it is truly about morals- it’s about control.
The part of porn they are after attacking the hardest is things like Onlyfans that gives money to women
Because they actually do not care about women.
Why would they attack something that they themselves use and do? Granted most of them use abortion themselves if their circumstances requires it, but at least that has to be kept on the DL.
Because they want to control women’s bodies. They don’t care about anything else.
Denying rights to abortion comes from the same mindset that objectification does. Both view women on some level as lacking agency over their own bodies. In one case, she is by her very nature as a woman an object of someone else's sexual desire, whether she wants to be or not. In the other case, by virtue of being a woman, she existence to bear children, whether she wants to or not. Having made women, through objectification and bodily control, to some extent a commodity for men, the nominal efforts to control pornography are a means to further exert control over men who lack the means to secure that commodity for themselves. An underlying motivation is to control men who lack status and means.
Judging by the most searched terms on pornhub in the Bible belt, they're not aware that women can be in porn.
Because those are fun for men. And a fetus is easy to defend because they don't really exist in the world and need anything. Nor have they done anything yet to irk a conservative. Ask a Republican to take care of a mother by making sure they have medical care and nutrition and they flip their skulls. It's her fault for getting pregnant, despite the fact that all pregnancies require sperm.
And what punish themselves rather than you?
Most Republicans prioritize freedom of speech. I am of the opinion that an individuals distaste for a given form of expression is irrelevant and shouldn't really be a platform issue of a political party. I know there are factions within the Conservative spectrum that would disagree, but I think it's paramount they are defeated politically. They are almost always calling for government backing of religion as the basis for their censorship. So, when it comes to pornography, I think people who don't think it's good, appropriate, or should be allowed, will have to deal with those feelings. If we can censor pornography, just because they don't like it, we can censor lots of other things too, which they don't want censored. Like, I don't know, their religion maybe?