****Z6IIAB wrote:Plus, saying that oppressing porn is oppressing women, and THAT goes hand-in-hand... yeah, you're gross for dismissing the research and the experience of thousands of women.paradoctor wrote:Antiporn plus pro-feminism; though that combination exists nowhere on actual Earth.
Anyways, the forum is not meant for conservatives like you. So... bye.
A forum is meant for all who join. Also, I am not a 'conservative'; or at least, not in the Orwellian sense now common. If I err, then state a valid argument against me. Let us reason together.
Specifically; where is there a society which heavily regulates images of women that does not also heavily regulate women themselves? I am open to suggestions.
There do exist societies that (ostensibly) suppress porn and (genuinely) oppress women. American red states, Moslem theocracies, and so on. There exist societies that (genuinely) express porn and (ostensibly) liberate women. American blue states, Scandinavian social democracies, and so on. There exist societies that (genuinely) express porn and (genuinely) oppress women. Japan, for instance. But please find for us an example of the fourth combination; a society that (ostensibly) suppresses porn, and also (ostensibly) liberates women.
BTW: I say 'ostensibly' suppress porn, because such rules are routinely hypocritical; rich men can always get whatever pictures they want. The Invisible Hand of the Market is quicker than the All-Seeing Eye of the State. Women's liberation is also ostensible, for liberation itself is usually ostensible; for freedom is a mystery and a struggle.
As for why option 4 does not exist in the space-time continuum, and only in the dreams of utopians: perhaps this has something to do with male psychology. If the pictures have cooties, then so do the women. I'm not saying this is an ideal reality, I'm saying this is a reality.
