When educators and researchers broach the subject of age restrictions and appropriate content, then one should give a listen and ponder their comments and POV. When a politician starts talking about "protecting children", they are typically gaslighting and about to take your rights away using kids as an excuse.
They are right in that teens will always be looking for porn, even just out of curiosity. They'll find ways to access it, even if heavily regulated and secured. Working at a school, I can tell you I've seen some pretty explicit stuff on some kids' devices. No matter what you do, you can't prevent it, short of completely disabling access to electronics, and posting security at every venue that makes these things available.
That doesn't mean one should be making it publicly available. Not everyone is ready for that kind of stuff.
And it's a particularly vile argument if they are talking about pedophiliac content (depicting underage people).
But they are also not wrong when they say that it's better to let kids experience this kind of content in a safe environment. Ideally, that should fall under parenting though. I think that when kids go about it in secrecy, they end up harming themselves emotionally and mentally.
I do not think they mean anything illegal in terms of the pornography (they do not specify any further about the type, so it can be presumed that they refer to legal but adult content), but I was worrying about children accessing this stuff, which made me uncomfortable due to my primary trigger being children.
I am not sure how to feel about what they said or what you said... this will take some time for me to think about it (I do not think anyone should be consuming that sort of media because of how it is engendered in sexism by depicting women, who are the primary actors in these kinds of material, as objects for men).
Edit: What does a safe environment mean? And why let kids experience that kind of content?
What does a safe environment mean? And why let kids experience that kind of content?
They will experience it eventually, at some point in their lives, whether as kids or as adults. Giving them a controlled way to experience these things can help them fortify themselves better against their worst consequences. It's the same approach taken by many parents regarding cigarettes and alcohol. Warn the child against it, but if they are determined to try it, it's better that they try it together with the parent, than alone or with friends, where they can binge, get carried away, be harmed by it, etc.
The mystique and the thrill of doing something forbidden plays a huge role in driving kids towards these things. And the adrenaline of having done something forbidden can actually reinforce the behavior and make it even more addictive. However, if there's the option of doing whatever in a safe manner and supervised, then kids tend to not consider it so attractive anymore. It's something to experience, sure, but there's no longer a strong urge to over-indulge. And whoever is supervising them gets the chance to help them through certain emotions about the experience, rather than let them deal with it alone, whether it's porn, horror, gore, violence, drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, etc.
I'm not saying let the kids experience anything willy-nilly, just because it's futile to stop them. I'm saying let them have an option to experience it safely, with someone who is going to be able to help them comprehend its consequences. For example, with porn, it'd be helpful if they are informed about how exploitative sex work can be, how certain porn is not made with consent, or even used as sex education.
wait, did you mean using pornography as sex education? if so, in what way do you say it should be used as that type of education?
Edit: I hope I am misinterpreting what you typed.
Pornography is used in sex education in some countries. Not very widely, and usually at the later stages and ages, but still used.
I'm not an expert in sex education, so I'll refer you to this article as a jumping off point: https://www.apa.org/monitor/2021/03/teaching-porn-literacy
You might also be interested in catching up on Nina Hartley, a retired porn actress, who is also a communist and a feminist, and now an activist for sex literacy: https://thehumanist.com/magazine/september-october-2010/features/atheism-ethics-and-pornography-an-interview-with-nina-hartley/
EDIT: Just so we are clear, since I saw your edit after answering, sex education isn't just about practicing safe sex. It's also about dealing with sexuality emotionally. Including being able to assess sexual content (in regards to consent, morality, etc), body positivity, avoiding feelings of guilt regarding sex, sexual orientation, sexual preferences and sexual content, and identifying signs of bad sexual tendencies and helping to overcome them (e.g. linking violence and sex). In that regard, sometimes letting kids view certain porn can help to reinforce these lessons. Especially in regards to sexual orientation and preferences.
I am not where you got communist from, the link you listed said she was a "Liberal Feminist" and all I can find on her elsewhere is her father and grandfather where commuists but nothing about her.
Second can you please clerify what you mean is by "...letting kids view certain porn can help to reinforce these lessons"?
yeah I thought I was misinterpreting but I am actually freaking out about that and have been crying for a while because I do not know what to do.
Take a deep breath, there is nothing to freak out about, take a quick walk and take a drink of water. I am asking to make sure I understand there intention, and am not making a mistake of understanding.
thank you, I am actually dealing with a lot of stress right now
I thought you meant showing them it for educational purposes.
Parents should absolutely not be providing their children cigarettes in any capacity, that is an absolutely mental idea.
How about having the children volunteer at a cancer hospice so they can see the effects of smoking first hand instead of trying the drug engineered to make you think it’s the best thing in the world.
"Serial kidnappers that do not actually exist".
They absolutely do but RAINN says that the majority of CSA is committed not by strangers but by acquaintances and family members.
As for porn, yeah, it's not even simply a matter of it being more accessible. Kids and teenagers are capable of imagination and creating images in their heads. They're also capable of writing and drawing. I think the Netherlands had the best solution; sex ed should be early and comprehensive so kids will learn from it before porn gives them the wrong ideas AND ALSO to equip them to recognize grooming or abuse attempts.
"I reported it for being gross".
Cool. Cool. We need to face "gross" sometimes. I'm trans and thus many people find me gross. It's a visceral cognitive shortcut that we needn't rely on. Wisdom of Repugnance is a fallacy for a reason.
I am very against the concept of thought crimes=real crimes (the ones that are only thoughts and stay thoughts obviously. like what is the actual transference rate of "thought" crimes in to "real" crimes + what is the purpose of policing thoughts that don't have serious followup into action. wasted effort to the wrong purpose, there are real harms being done to real people not being righted right now, AND we have a class war to fight) and its resultant attitude: ruling/moderation via ick. I find it a common tool of reactionaries to rush people to decide by emotions and shorten critical thinking, and I urge anyone who considers themselves a student of marxism and dialectical materialism to first and foremost consider and question, on the topic of ick especially, who exactly is being harmed, what is the context, and in what way (if even of substance) and why. "I don't like it, I don't like seeing it, therefore I'm being harmed" is never sufficient. "Someone could be harmed by this" and yet we humans get into motor vehicles and fly airplanes every day... ... what is the context, what is the likelihood, every qualia and factor is worth picking over. The fact that most CSA is not committed by strangers but someone the child already knows AND has power over the child is key context in the topic of "protecting children" whereas mainstream media is making "protecting children" out to be both stranger danger and painting queer and/or kinky people as child predators (already truncated the "would be" out of there to intensify scapegoating).
On related note (sorry,,, this is related to my essay/makes sense here, but it's more responding to other comments in this thread), the effects of fiction is outsized and are often nothing more than reflections of societal values of its authors' context: the harm of was not the mass fear that it would inspire copycat serial killers, but rather, the notion that any male would attempt to become or present as a woman is because "he" has evil machinations (transmisogyny)(this isn't something originated, rather magnified); somewhat of an exception, did cause a surge KKK support during its era, but it has much longer repercussions in pervasive racist attitudes towards black men juxtaposed against the "purity" of white women: over a hundred years later and both "white woman tears" and intense racial profiling via policing against black men is a testament to that, more so than KKK membership or activity, but again, both phenomena are not originated by but rather magnified and dispersed via the film). The fear that (misogynistic, cishet) porn <as if it's replacement for proper sexual education> teaches youth to reprise misogynistic sexual roles does two things: 1. it presupposes that anyone and especially young people don't have autonomy or lack critical thinking and only have the capacity to reproduce what they see and 2. acts like misogyny in sexual relationships is either solely due to porn or that porn has an outsized impact here. When clearly, it's society at large that is misogynistic and porn like any other media certainly reflects that and again like any other media has a hand in misogyny continuing to pervade. Blanket statements like "(I don't like porn/porn is bad because) porn demeans women" are dogmatic and insinuates a relationship of essence when it is not the case, a more factual/closer to reality statement would be like "a great majority of porn already produced and currently being produced is misogynistic, but not because porn is inherently misogynistic at its essence, but because it (on the macro scale, overall) reflects sexual attitudes of society at large, which is misogynistic. There is potential for sexual entertainment content to have altered context where misogyny is greatly reduced." (And similarly, there is potential for the production of pornography to be fully* consensual and non-exploitative/or at least just as exploitative as any other form of wage labor.) Like the issue of misogynistic porn isn't that it is sexual content, but that it is misogynistic, and those two things - sexuality and misogyny - aren't irrevocably intertwined.
Something I've noticed as well is that this latest generation of young people seem to be extremely sex-negative and increasingly puritan to the point of intensely policing others if they detect a shred of sexuality... but maybe it's cuz I'm Old now or something. And often it's directed at young women their own age, and just various refractions from the prism of slut-shaming misogyny (ngl, as someone who grew up in 2000s-2010s, and understood the 90s enough, slut shaming variety of misogyny was there too and never really ceased. HOWEVER unfortunately fatphobia + rise of anorexia in young women today has resurged to ~2000s level imo). I think it would be so much better !AND ANTI-MISOGYNISTIC! to teach young people to be NORMAL about sexuality. I don't think porn (especially since a lot of it is already misogynistic) should be a part of that education directly, certainly talking about how porn isn't realistic/reflects certain ideas, but discussion of sexuality overall shouldn't be so policed and "gross" and taboo.
Well said. I don't blame people entirely for depending on cognitive shortcuts because we are oppressed and sapped of mental energy but fighting oppression effectively necissitates we recognize what it looks like and where it comes from.
Something I’ve noticed as well is that this latest generation of young people seem to be extremely sex-negative and increasingly puritan to the point of intensely policing others if they detect a shred of sexuality…
This is a largely western phenomenon from what I've seen and it's led to clashes on RedNote and other places, thus the policing takes on a racist form. Big surprise. I think there's plenty of sex positive young people in the west, they just get silences and suppressed by the negative people you mentioned, many of whom go to absolutely extreme measures to antagonize them. Doxxing, threats of abuse, the list goes on and on. One example was doxxing someone in the middle east to homophobic parents. This, I believe, is a reproduction of capitalist power-dynamics as well as fear of ostracization out of "looking bad". Fear justified and self-reproduced in part by the aforementioned abuses. Thankfully pushback's been stronger lately.
There’s this famous quote by GK Chesterton
Fairy tales do not tell children the dragons exist. Children already know that dragons exist. Fairy tales tell children the dragons can be killed.
Kids already know that porn exists. Banning porn won’t change that. What kids need to learn is that it’s fiction and that it’s not reflective of reality. Treating it as such is extremely harmful to how you view other people.
True, those that consume pornography and assume it is reality will end up harming themselves and others if left to fester beyond the point of no return.
It is a trash take.
Trying to prohibit access to porn is obviously impossible but that doesn't mean it should be made easier.
Adults shouldn't even be watching porn; never mind teenagers.
I guess you disagree with another person's answer in this comment section. I am just unsure what to think of the answers some people have given me.
I get that. Sometimes you get a lot of varied responses and aren't sure what to make of it all. That's normal; a good opportunity to examine your own thoughts on a subject sometimes.
Yeah, it is a difficult subject for me to handle because of personal issues, but hearing the differing perspectives and not shying away from reading them is probably better for my mental health in the long-term. I still do not accept just giving them access to anything like what this topic was about just because it is difficult to prevent them from seeing it.
That is correct. Exposure therapy is considered the most effective therapy for a reason. Well done.
The issue is that merely exposing oneself to triggers is not good enough; it must be done in appropriate doses, which is nearly impossible on the internet, which can suddenly slap me in the face with something triggering to myself, and my trigger would thus become heightened. It is a difficult balance to achieve...
It may also be because everyone has different ideas as to what "porn" means. Does it involve real people? Is there money involved? Things like that. With a sufficiently strong imagination and/or a sufficiently varied libido, one could get off to anything whether it was created for such a purpose or not.
I have noticed, it appears like it's not uncommon for there to be some wires crossed in discussions about porn. Something like:
Person who opposes porn: thinks everyone is talking about porn involving real people being filmed/photographed in sexual scenarios
Person who is generally more open to its existence (but may still share the opposition toward porn involving real people): thinks the discussion is about any and all sexualized material, including cartoon lewd drawings, smut writing, etc.
Like I can easily see reason to ban selling of the 1st one, to de-commodify it as much as possible and help people who might otherwise turn to it to make money, make sure they'll never feel pressured to go for that option.
The 2nd one, OTOH, the production of it can be a much more impersonal thing. It can still be harmful in the sense of misrepresenting sex and creating unhealthy expectations, reinforcing misogyny or things of that nature, enabling overwhelming yourself with too much novel stimulation (in the high speed internet form of it). But it's not inherently of a particular ideological bent and is more an enabler of fantasy than it is presented like a depiction of real sex. I mean, how many woman readers of Fifty Shades of Grey actually want to be in the woman's position? None, because fantasizing about something isn't the same as living it. Those kind of stories are not meant to be something you would actually want pushed on you. Part of understanding sexuality is understanding the nature of consenting roleplay, and the difference between a fantasy and real life. I think it is a subject that is severely under-studied due to stigma.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
that's fine, we clearly disagree on this point and it doesn't seem like a resolution here is possible.
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.
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.
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 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.
If people are guaranteed living standards, them selling their bodies will naturally either away, no blanket bans requires.
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
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.
boasting about consuming that material is weird
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.
A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest