I mean the porn. It seems like a non sequitur to withhold something ideologically compatible and inessential, plus the notion of pornographers fighting for equality is a joke.
Why is the notion of pornographers fighting for equality a joke? XHamster seems to have a pretty progressive corporate view towards sexuality. Obviously not all the content on the site is that way, but you seem to be implying pornography is inherently bad?
Besides, you're naive if you think the Republican lawmakers who push this type of legislation are actually so wholesome that this is totally irrelevant.
I think because in many cases porn can be exploitative and can perpetuate stereotypes of aggression in sex and set unrealistic expectations for many people who then develop complexes.
It's a complex issue. On the one hand sex is natural, on the other hand the way it's portrayed can have major influence on how young adults (and even mature adults) view sex which can be loving and consensual to violent and unrealistic. And it can lead some to objectifying people.
I'll go further than imply, and outright state that pornography is inherently and irredeemably bad. Enough has been written and said about it, so I'll leave that to you to sort out.
I think though that for one of several dozen companies to shut down services just means that people will get it elsewhere, republican or not.
They're just trying to look progressive, but real progress is fundamentally incompatible with their business.
> I'll go further than imply, and outright state that pornography is inherently and irredeemably bad.
While I don't agree, I also think this is a reasonable stance for someone to take. I would encourage others who disagree with this comment to avoid downvoting it simply because you disagree with it.
I realize that not everyone accepts that pornography is inherently harmful as a medium, and thought to avoid that discussion (which has been going on for longer than we've been alive) in favor of discussing how futile this act of faux solidarity is.
I'll go further than imply, and outright state that pornography is inherently and irredeemably bad.
I agree with you, but porn is a small part of the larger problem that modernity presents us with hypernormal stimuli absolutely everywhere. Television, movies, calorie-dense foods, even things like HVAC. Decrying porn without decrying all forms of hypernormal stimuli seems odd.
Pornography is more than hyperstimulation: the messages in pornography are hateful towards women and minorities. Coupling those messages with the reward of orgasm is going much further.
Yes, and like I said, money makes the consent given questionable at best. Threats of violence can also be used to negate consent. Social pressure applies as well. These factors do not disappear in so called amateur pornography.
> plus the notion of pornographers fighting for equality is a joke.
Do explain. Are you saying the porn industry pushes a certain ideology (e.g. only anonymous-male-on-model sex!1)? I'm pretty sure the porn industry is purely a capitalistic endeavour, as in, whatever sells - and non-traditional (if that's the right term to use) porn happens to sell.
I think the porn jabs at the hypocrisy of it all. Most of these anti-gay groups love to throw stones from their insanely tall horses. They pick and choose from the buffet of sins, and ignore the rest.
Porn is likely something they publicly are against, but i would be honestly impressed if it's something they (in their private homes) are against.
Hell, most of these people can't even stomach "Love thy neighbor". Let alone sins of the flesh.
