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.
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.