The list isn't that long.

You didn't really include enough information to pinpoint exactly who it was, but the only two groups of anti-pornographers I know about are social conservatives and radical feminists, both of which conflate consensual and non-consensual sexual activity. Then when you see the word "morally" you can narrow that down to the former.

I'm actually familiar with Rod Dreher. We get the Dallas Morning News here in the office(which is a rag not fit to line bird cages) and he wrote a collumn there for years. Rod Dreher is a pseudo-intellectual shitbag of the first order. If you've ever seen the movie, Red State, it's a fictional tale about a congregation that believes homosexuality is an infectious disease. That describes Rod Dreher. If he could make it legal to execute homosexuals, I'm sure he would. I wouldn't piss in his ear if his brain was on fire.

They ended up exesensitally accusing me of misandry

what they perceive to be such out of character political behavior, I guess, in people who are otherwise so this-that-or-the-other.

Yes, indeed, one can certainly wonder why someone who is pro-choice, who supports the right of consenting adults to make their own decisions about sex and their own bodies, all of a sudden turns on a flippin' dime, yo, and the minute that those consenting adults are in front of a camera that is turned on, those "so-called progressives" suddenly continue to support the right of consenting adults to make their own decisions about sex and their own bodies!

Like. Whaaaaaaaaatthefuckisupwiththat?

Or someone who believes in the first amendment, all that choosy-choice "freedumb" nonsense and whatnot... as soon as you're talking about fucking on film, why, they still yarble that irritating blather about freedom of speech.

THAT'S SOME SEEEEERIOUS FUCKIN' HYPOCRISY, MAN.


They should take a cue from the true progressives, you know, the people who ostensibly believe in liberal progressivism, personal autonomy, and secular open government, while opposing the religious right... until some creep buys a dirty magazine (do they even have those, anymore?) at which point Phylis Shlafly and Ed Meese and Rick Santorum magically become the GREATEST DEFENDERS OF LIBERAL VALUES EVAH

It's hard to avoid the conclusion that it isn't about the industry or the actresses; it's about the customers.

Or so some say.

that I'm clearly too incapacitated to give consent.

Close?

There is definetly a disconnect here.

it's enough that it once gain conflates acting in porn to being abused. And, of course, it seems to define the sex act itself as something contemptible, immoral, and probably illegal.

Commercial porn has historically paid the women far more than the men and depicted them as taking incredible joy in the act. The men seem to be merely tools to provide the women with infinite orgasms.

This is often the case in life, too. Everyone conveniently forgets that sexual fantasy that has something to do with properly pleasing a woman.

Nowadays. It is no longer mags and a vhs but an interactive experience with people doing it and each other via chatrooms and web cams. The internet had changed porn from dirty macs and side streets to anyone who wants to can exhibit themselves online.

it's easier for them to rant on about the evils of porn and, from "our" side, the enslavement of porn actresses if they ignore those popunders for "private chats" that they must have seen in their "research."

I went to a peep show once years ago just to see what it was, and it was as nasty as I imagined. I'm not sure I ever want to meet the guys who get off on that. Now, however, the peep show is in your office, bedroom, kitchen, or car and doesn't seem so sleazy at all. I don't know how much they make, but it's probably more than their cut of a quarter for a few minutes of the shutter going up. And no one has to wash the walls on the internet.

Anti-pornographers always point out the worst of it, but the vast majority of commercial pornography is geared towards hotels, DVDs, and now subscription services like Brazzers.

Where there is the ability to discuss stuff and gear it towards the participants.

I've explained my personal sense of ambivalence toward porn, but if you believe in "choice" as in "freedom to choose", then it's clear that people should be able to do what they want.

The arguments that I find most vexing are "studies show that porn causes rape". Well, I don't know about "studies", but my lying eyes, as well as the NCVS tell me that rape victimization is far less common than it was before porn became ubiquitous. Arguing that an inverse correlation = causation should get people laughed out of the room.

It is very possible that the NCVS survey undercounts rape victims, but it's valid in a way that no other survey is going to be able to do better; it's been asking the same questions since 1972 and thus provides useful trend information. If rape is undercounted today (because of ambiguous definition of rape for instance) then it was doing so in 1972 as well.

Among grownups, "No" means no. "Yes" means yes.

Theories are models which attempt to describe reality. When the theory doesn't match reality, one should question the theory, not reality.

Exactly this.

I don't think you have really properly intuited my emotional state this time.

I certainly agree there are some kooky people with kooky opinions out there. But I guess I'm missing the greater significance.

Briefly (and therefore oversimplified):

There is a moralistic component to discussing these sexual issues that needs to be recognized.

For some, speaking out against prostitution or pornography or woman showing their tits in a protest or men "jerking off" to rape fantasies has a moral component that I think they don't own up to. Or if not moral, than certainly an emotional one that does not rise to the facade of social justice-seeking that some feign.

We get closest to seeing it when we hear people getting "skeeved out" over men sniffing panties that are supposedly from schoolgirls (guess what, they almost certainly are not.) or being offended by women dressing as young girls, or mother-fetishes or WHATEVER....

I tend to get too hung up on stuff. Slights and the like.

I wish I had some pot. But I can't smoke it here in Japan.

...was someone being called to defend a person's consent in a moral framework?

Oh, yeah, I keep forgetting. Any time we come near any topic remotely sexual, either individually or as a society, SOME people feel the need to construct a whole framework of morality (negatively biased, natch) around it.