Thanks Meghan. It's a well-written piece. I'm going to have to read more and watch the comments. I'm in an uncomfortable place: I agree with your points in this article, but am secure in my conclusion that government or big-corp-government censorship is a huge loss of liberty, and not in a this-is-an-unfortunate-trade-off kind of way. How to protect the vulnerable without transforming the government and the powerful into authoritarian moral arbiters?
I understand your points about men (I make no apologies for being one). But, for the record and to offer some anecdotal balance, I've said "no" a few times to women who have encouraged or outright requested sexual acts from me that I felt were shameful or would compromise me in really stupid ways. Men aren't the only perverted sexualists out there.
Finally, I share your wide-eyed distress about the lack of boundaries between porn and children. I'm at a loss. So much tech, so much bad content, so many ways to get around filters and controls. My wife and I talk with my son as much as possible about this stuff. As he matures, we try to discuss porn and sexuality with careful regard for what's out there and who he is. Ignoring it probably isn't the best answer for us.
I agree that women encourage this stuff too, and probably should have made that more clear, as I don't actually think it's always, like, them being pressured. But I think the REASONS they do it is because they think it makes them 'sexually liberated' and that it will impress men. I know men who've also said 'no' to women who ask for violent acts, as they should imo.
Re: the point that 'government or big-corp-government censorship is a huge loss of liberty,' I agree, but honestly don't see this as 'censorship, if we approach it from a prostitution lens. If we approach from a 'banning certain imagery,' we might end up in a sketchy zone...
I think it is essential to recognize that the policies (pornography & prostitution abolition) many of us advocate for are not solely beneficial to women. For instance, my brother and many other male family members suffered severe sexual abuse as children. It is not a coincidence that they all struggled with a pornography addiction later in life (and yes, I am aware that many people who have porn addictions were not sexually molested or raped as children.) It breaks my heart to say that my brother still struggles with that addiction. He did not elect to get help until his wife disclosed this to my sister, my mom, and me, wherein we talked with him about our concerns. That conversation was tough; he cried and admitted he hated that his addiction was controlling his life, wrecking his marriage. He later recognized it was prolonging much-needed healing from his childhood. Porn is not simply harmful to the sexually objectified; it is disruptive and addictive to the consumer.
Contrary to popular belief, a well-written law can be established something along the lines of:
Sexually explicit imagery or video content that depicts penetration or oral sex acts or ejaculation.
Sexual imagery in which one or more individual is nude and positioned in a sexual nature that does not have historical or educational relevance either appear in the image or explained in the accompanying text.
Sexually explicit content does not include: women wearing bathing suits, marketing lingerie in the absence of nudity, those in clothing which some may interpret as sexually suggestive, such as short skirts, short shorts, low-cut tops, backless dresses, etc., so long as they are not also performing sex acts. Such content restrictions should never be employed on content that would deliberately interfere with or diminish a woman’s self-expression or inherent sexuality so long as it does not include nudity.
Thanks Meghan. It's a well-written piece. I'm going to have to read more and watch the comments. I'm in an uncomfortable place: I agree with your points in this article, but am secure in my conclusion that government or big-corp-government censorship is a huge loss of liberty, and not in a this-is-an-unfortunate-trade-off kind of way. How to protect the vulnerable without transforming the government and the powerful into authoritarian moral arbiters?
I understand your points about men (I make no apologies for being one). But, for the record and to offer some anecdotal balance, I've said "no" a few times to women who have encouraged or outright requested sexual acts from me that I felt were shameful or would compromise me in really stupid ways. Men aren't the only perverted sexualists out there.
Finally, I share your wide-eyed distress about the lack of boundaries between porn and children. I'm at a loss. So much tech, so much bad content, so many ways to get around filters and controls. My wife and I talk with my son as much as possible about this stuff. As he matures, we try to discuss porn and sexuality with careful regard for what's out there and who he is. Ignoring it probably isn't the best answer for us.
Again, tough topic. Thanks for writing.
I agree that women encourage this stuff too, and probably should have made that more clear, as I don't actually think it's always, like, them being pressured. But I think the REASONS they do it is because they think it makes them 'sexually liberated' and that it will impress men. I know men who've also said 'no' to women who ask for violent acts, as they should imo.
Re: the point that 'government or big-corp-government censorship is a huge loss of liberty,' I agree, but honestly don't see this as 'censorship, if we approach it from a prostitution lens. If we approach from a 'banning certain imagery,' we might end up in a sketchy zone...
Thanks for your thoughts!
I think it is essential to recognize that the policies (pornography & prostitution abolition) many of us advocate for are not solely beneficial to women. For instance, my brother and many other male family members suffered severe sexual abuse as children. It is not a coincidence that they all struggled with a pornography addiction later in life (and yes, I am aware that many people who have porn addictions were not sexually molested or raped as children.) It breaks my heart to say that my brother still struggles with that addiction. He did not elect to get help until his wife disclosed this to my sister, my mom, and me, wherein we talked with him about our concerns. That conversation was tough; he cried and admitted he hated that his addiction was controlling his life, wrecking his marriage. He later recognized it was prolonging much-needed healing from his childhood. Porn is not simply harmful to the sexually objectified; it is disruptive and addictive to the consumer.
Contrary to popular belief, a well-written law can be established something along the lines of:
Sexually explicit imagery or video content that depicts penetration or oral sex acts or ejaculation.
Sexual imagery in which one or more individual is nude and positioned in a sexual nature that does not have historical or educational relevance either appear in the image or explained in the accompanying text.
Sexually explicit content does not include: women wearing bathing suits, marketing lingerie in the absence of nudity, those in clothing which some may interpret as sexually suggestive, such as short skirts, short shorts, low-cut tops, backless dresses, etc., so long as they are not also performing sex acts. Such content restrictions should never be employed on content that would deliberately interfere with or diminish a woman’s self-expression or inherent sexuality so long as it does not include nudity.