13
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Apr 2026
13 points (84.2% liked)
Ask Lemmygrad
1328 readers
111 users here now
A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
yes, the production and distribution of pornography should absolutely be banned, it is abhorrent and destructive both for the people being exploited in the pornography and the consumers of pornography, especially if they are children. in lieu of that, offering a controlled environment for kids to experience things of that nature is better than them experiencing it for themselves and not having guidance for how horrible and destructive those kind of things can be. in both cases, educating children as to why things like that are banned (because they are harmful and not because they're "super cool") is obviously important. but frankly i don't buy the whole "there's no point in banning it because they'll always get access to it" argument: access should be made as difficult and as challenging as possible, to increase the barrier to entry.
I do think that specifically 18+ content done for money should be banned because full consent cannot be guaranteed when money changes hands, but I personally have no problem with 18+ content produced and distributed with no expectation or desire for monetization.
i understand that sentiment and i think it's rational, but pornography where there is an exchange of money accounts for, what, 99.9% of today's pornography? from the original producers (whether they be artists, actors, directors, editors, etc) to distributors (ranging from small websites that also produce to huge platforms like onlyfans), to the whole host of third party content resharers that make the majority of their revenue from ads, the vast, vast majority of pornography production involves an exchange of money. i think as marxists we have to take the labor theory of value pretty seriously here: the liberals are in a way correct when they exclaim that "sex work is work," in the sense that (in a world where your needs are not guaranteed) anyone participating in the act of pornography creation/distribution has a material interest in seeking compensation for their labor, and it is that interest that would be squashed with a full ban on pornography production and distribution.
because, not to be pedantic, what about nonfinancial compensation for pornography production, or sex work in general? i imagine we would all agree that, for example, an exchange of goods/services (i.e. crystallized labor power) in return for sex is just as bad as prostitution where money (i.e. a more liquid and exchangeable crystallized labor power) exchanges hands. in fact it's potentially even worse, because it's harder to write laws against and harder to enforce those laws. a full ban on pornography production/distribution avoids these potential loopholes to ensure no one (or, the least number of people possible, accepting the near certainty of a black market) have a material interest in pornography.
furthermore, pornography is obviously problematic because of its deep ties to and representation of patriarchy. it affects how people view and consequently engage in sex, and in what erotic art people might make as well. i think it's perfectly fine to ban all erotic art until the commodity form is abolished. i don't believe that free expression is more important than the minds and lives of all those who are touched and affected by pornography.
just to clarify, no, this does not apply to nudes sent between consenting adults in the same way that a ban on prostitution is not a ban on sex. and no, i don't necessarily think a full ban is something that should be implemented immediately but something that should be worked towards in stages.
I do think that expression of your sexuality without expectation of anything in return does exist right now and will exist in the future.
i completely agree with your statement, so i'm not really sure where our contradiction lies.
I disagree with the idea that being sexually open should be banned.
okay, in your own words define what you mean by "being sexually open."
I mean openly expressing your sexuality without expectation of anything in return.
I believe that the problem is right now that the patriarchy has only legitimized 18+ content done for money because it is still a method of control, just replacing morals with money.
People who express themselves sexually online while rejecting any compensation should be allowed to do so.
what, in your view, does this entail? what are some examples, real or hypothetical?
can you elaborate more on this? in what way do you believe it is a method of control (control over whom and via what means)? we live under capitalism, so what role do you see the profit motive and material interest playing in the production of adult content?
I would say someone who posts explicit pictures or videos of themselves on a platform like a public 18+ Discord server and rejects any offer of money or any other material compensation
I believe it is a method of control over women because the market for adult content still denies women control over their own bodies. This is why women as I described in point 1 are still looked down upon inside of patriarchy because they are expressing purely their own sexuality and can stop at any moment with no consequence. And as capitalism commodifies everything, it has also commodified human sexuality. There is a material interest under capitalism for monetizing your sexual expression, as there is for monetizing everything. That's why I'm explicitly for banning monetized 18+ content rather than 18+ content in general, to draw a much clearer line distinguishing expressing your own sexuality purely for fun and doing it to satisfy material interests.
but, my issue is that while the commodity form still exists, the material interest to get compensated for your labor power will also exist, inherently. you can't just legislate it away. the more labor power and surplus value that is spent on the production of explicit content (and the greater need of the producers), the stronger the material interest to get compensated for it. this is why, no matter what legislation was introduced, a black market for this content will almost certainly exist. the goal should make it as difficult and as unprofitable to enter and distribute within this black market. i believe a full ban on public explicit content best satisfies this goal without restricting the activities of private citizens. of course this should be done en tandem with providing people trapped in the industry opportunities to leave it as well.
furthermore, capitalism doesn't just provide a material interest to monetize your body, but to commodify it, i.e. to exchange it. exchange and compensation does not require the exchange of money, money is just the most liquid and mutually agreed upon form of crystallized labor power. but, it is exceptionally more difficult to write and enforce a ban on an exchange of labor power or goods than money. it also requires more invasion of privacy as well. consequently i think it's much more efficient and effective to enforce a full ban on the public distribution of explicit content.
lastly, i think sexual expression is great and important. i also agree that patriarchy looks down upon sexual expression (while it simultaneously materially encourages it). however, i think it is orders of magnitude more important that women and queer folk don't get trapped in the sex industry. i would gladly sacrifice the public sexual expression of the few for the liberation of the many any day of the week. this of course wouldn't affect private sexual expression whatsoever, and so frankly i don't think it's a very big cost. of course there's also the aspect of how capitalism affects our understanding of sexuality itself and what a socialist sexuality would look like, but i think that's too deep a rabbit hole for me to go down right now.
I disagree with the idea that providing resources for exploited people to leave the sex industry and making it not profitable would require a full blanket ban on public explicit material. What this ban will do, however, is demonize people who want to express their sexuality publicly by telling them that their way of expression is incompatible with socialist ideals when it really isn't. Such a ban will not stop at the few but inevitably seep its way into general culture, perpetuating ideas that sexuality is shameful.
that's fine, we clearly disagree on this point and it doesn't seem like a resolution here is possible.
i feel like you're really extrapolating a lot from very little, here. what gives you this impression? after all, this wouldn't be a ban on all public mentions of sex or sexuality at all, just explicit materials shared publicly. sex education would obviously be super important as well, in terms of teaching about consent, healthy relationships, etc. furthermore, i do in fact think that loveless sex is a product of capitalist patriarchy, rather than a product of proletarian ideology and ideals.
i don't think the line between private and public is arbitrary just because there are instances where it can be challenging to define one or the other, in fact i think claiming the line is arbitrary is strictly undialectical. i already made clear the high probability of a black market existing, and my reasoning despite that fact. in the hypothetical example you mentioned, if someone has a material interest in doing it once they have a material interest in doing it many times, and they have a material interest in broadcasting their intent to as many as possible. this makes it easier to notice and enforce, and it makes shutting down public explicit materials that much more effective.
the point here is that you cannot completely remove the material interest in producing and distributing explicit materials until the commodity form no longer exists. until then, we should be as strict as possible in trying to ensure that the fewest number of people have a material interest in selling their bodies. if i'm wrong, then people are essentially upset for being censured. if you're wrong, then more people than would otherwise be necessary would have sufficient material interest to commodify their bodies. i think my potential error is much more preferable.
but, is this going to happen day 1 post-revolution? or year 1? or year 100? how long will it take for capital and the bourgeoisie to wither away until communism, and are you okay with not stemming the tide of sexual exploitation as much as possible until, well, we reach communism?
i also fully accept that a blanket ban on day 1 post-revolution is also not feasible or possible, and so i would obviously take a gradual approach towards that blanket ban. however, in the gradual approach towards that blanket ban, if it so happens that no one has a material interest in commodifying their bodies despite the existence of the commodity form, i would be more than happy to settle with a partial ban. however, i do not see this as likely for the reasons i have already explained to you.
After experiencing #love & reading #Kollontai I am inclined to agree
Furthermore, this line between "private" and "public" is completely arbitrary. What if someone DMed someone else and through that arranged a transaction involving explicit pictures? This is "private" but neither of us would support it being legal. I do not think that running a Discord server where consenting adults upload explicit pictures on should be illegal. If people are guaranteed living standards, them selling their bodies will naturally wither away, no blanket bans required.
oh a controversial opinion, but one I appreciate nonetheless because I am glad to see differing perspectives on this post. I do wonder what Marxists here think of China's attitude towards pornography (I think they ban it completely?).
little surprised it's controversial tbh haha. the whole "sex work is work!" thing is a liberal feminist trope. pornography production should be banned just like pimping should be banned.
from what i've heard/read on the issue, there is a soft ban on pornography in china in the sense that it is made more difficult to access, but if you do there are not significant consequences incurred, which i think is fine. as far as pornography production is concerned i'm not sure.
Liberal feminists be capitulationists, yo. I think that the industry around that is inherently unhealthy (because of how it treats women), so simply letting women "choose" to participate in it (some certainly do not consider it a chance, especially if they are poor).
Hmm, I thought it was more of a hard ban with strict laws relating to it, but maybe not. Do you think China's way of handling it is the right way?
exactly. i would go so far as to say that the vast majority of the participants in the sex industry do not feel like they have a choice in the matter. the most successful, you might call them the "sex industry bourgeoisie," are the most notable and the most famous, and consequently the most likely to praise the industry for how feminist it is. the millions of people captured in the industry with no way to exit it (either implicitly through material interests or explicitly through sex trafficking) are rarely heard from.
i'm not sure! i imagine it's the way best suited to china's own material conditions, but i think the west is a little different in the sense that we've had more time to economically develop and therefore have developed more as it relates to patriarchy and capitalist patriarchy. i'm not entirely sure how that would affect laws or their implementation, though. i do think a hard ban on pornography production/distribution is primarily to the benefit of those who would otherwise be caught up in the industry, so making sure not to criminalize victims of the industry is important. victims should be given any possible opportunities to exit the industry. we also have a huge pornography industry already, so a hard ban right away would probably not be the best idea, but rather doing it in stages. those are just a few of my ideas, i'd have to think about it for longer to have a more complete answer for you.
I'm not sure. China is a massive place with different politicians everywhere. I see people on Rednote talk and boast about consuming porn in the face of "western puritans". It may depend on the type of porn.
I am not sure who the western puritans are (maybe republicans), since I do not think America bans pornography (outside of egregiously illegal examples that I do not need to list here); boasting about consuming that material is weird regardless.
Quite right. What's wrong with weird?
The western puritans are a large group of internet-goers who police sexual expression and thought and go to absolutely absurd lengths to expose, harass, or dox people who have them. People on Rednote compared them to colonialists.
There is nothing wrong with being weird, but bragging about consumption of that adult material is not really something I understand; why would you do it?
Oh, those people sound annoying. I get not wanting to have pornography be legal, but harassing people is not a way of fighting patriarchy (and I doubt they are the type to even care about patriarchy anyways).
Why? In response to the aforementioned westerners. "We can consume what you hate and you gringos can't stop us" kind of stuff.
"Consumption" is another strange term to me, one that underestimate how accessible porn is. It doesn't get consumed. 1,000 people can view the same porn 1,000 times and copy and distribute it endlessly. It doesn't get used up like a drug.