28

As far as i know, consumption, distribution, and production of it is prohibited. Is the prohibition based on a new proletarian morality/ethic or is there a materialist basis for the complete ban?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] thefreepenguinalt@lemmygrad.ml 15 points 1 week ago

Honestly, I've never really gotten the train of thought that if a piece of media is sexual in nature it automatically becomes socially unnecessary. In my opinion, this whole narrative that something must be SFW to be socially necessary is... kinda arbitrary?

[-] dil@piefed.zip 3 points 6 days ago

Porn is less exploitave than the actual model/photography industry which pimps men and woman out, alan ritchson talked about his experience on dax shepard's podcast and how normalized it is.

[-] Munrock@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 1 week ago

Media being sexual in nature doesn't automatically make it pornography. Media that's specifically designed for sexual gratification is. Movies like Her, American Beauty, The Graduate are all not porn even though sexuality is heavily involved.

[-] thefreepenguinalt@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

From my perspective, I don't view the sexual as "antisocial until it is adorned with "higher" aspects of humanity". I think the sexual can be pro-social in and of itself.

[-] Munrock@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 6 days ago

No one said the non-sexual aspects of media are "higher aspects of humanity". Yes the sexual can be pro-social, you'll see plenty of that in China, but media designed specifically as wanking material is not considered healthy by China.

[-] thefreepenguinalt@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 6 days ago

But then how would you differ creative expression of one's own sexuality from wanking material?

this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2026
28 points (88.9% liked)

Ask Lemmygrad

1373 readers
115 users here now

A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS