Joe Boudain said:

---

I see no ill effects from divorcing the procreative and unitive nature of sex from it's physical expression. It's not like society is careening into a pansexual horror film or anything.

Any decent society would outlaw porn and consider pornographers for the depraved minions of satan that they are; but hell; if it pays the bills it can't be bad can it?

---

Yep because laws work perfectly well. I mean we outlawed alcohol, weed is illegal in most states, kids can't smoke cigarettes, etc etc etc. As a result none of these things happen.

Laws are a guaranteed failure for porn just like all of the above. The only purpose of passing a law for any of those things is to make people feel better. They're a lot likes masks in that regard. Hopeless virtue signaling that's guaranteed to fail, but you feel good because you did SOMETHING, right?

So what's the solution? What if I told you there's not one?

javajaws said:

---

Four Seasons Landscaping said:

---

Porn is going to exist and there will always be scumbags trying to exploit young women in that industry.

Onlyfans is the single best thing for allowing the women to minimize how much they're being exploited while they monetize their T&A.

---

How can they be "exploited" when they are doing it themselves?

---

Entrepreneurs will find a way.

LOYAL AG said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

I see no ill effects from divorcing the procreative and unitive nature of sex from it's physical expression. It's not like society is careening into a pansexual horror film or anything.

Any decent society would outlaw porn and consider pornographers for the depraved minions of satan that they are; but hell; if it pays the bills it can't be bad can it?

---

Yep because laws work perfectly well. I mean we outlawed alcohol, weed is illegal in most states, kids can't smoke cigarettes, etc etc etc. As a result none of these things happen.

Laws are a guaranteed failure for porn just like all of the above. The only purpose of passing a law for any of those things is to make people feel better. They're a lot likes masks in that regard. Hopeless virtue signaling that's guaranteed to fail, but you feel good because you did SOMETHING, right?

So what's the solution? What if I told you there's not one?

---

Ah, the old "it probably won't work 100% so we shouldn't even bother" argument.

There are ways to put an end to the vast majority of porn. But bourgeois coomers and "muh free market" libertarians get a bit squeamish

LOYAL AG said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

I see no ill effects from divorcing the procreative and unitive nature of sex from it's physical expression. It's not like society is careening into a pansexual horror film or anything.

Any decent society would outlaw porn and consider pornographers for the depraved minions of satan that they are; but hell; if it pays the bills it can't be bad can it?

---

Yep because laws work perfectly well. I mean we outlawed alcohol, weed is illegal in most states, kids can't smoke cigarettes, etc etc etc. As a result none of these things happen.

Laws are a guaranteed failure for porn just like all of the above. The only purpose of passing a law for any of those things is to make people feel better. They're a lot likes masks in that regard. Hopeless virtue signaling that's guaranteed to fail, but you feel good because you did SOMETHING, right?

So what's the solution? What if I told you there's not one?

---

Nothing works perfectly well. The prohibition of alcohol was wildly successful at decreasing the amount of alcohol consumed on a per capita basis. The prohibition of child pornography does a fantastic job of reducing the amount of child porn available. If child porn was legalized, it would explode all over the internet as the artificial barrier to supply would be removed and it would rise to fill demand.

The solution is not to let perfect be the enemy of good. This is the same argument that the democrats used against the wall. "You think it's going to stop ALL illegal immigration". Of course not, but it will be better. Yes, machine gun nests and shooting anyone who steps foot over the line would be a better deterrent, but we're not going to do that, nor should we do that.

What about that whole free will thing? If you want to make a faith-based argument, you need to consider that free will is a part of all of those things. It was never the government's job, and it should never be the government's job, to tell people what not to do if it isn't hurting someone else. A girl who wants to create an OF page and make money is the same as the girl who wants to work at the local breastaurant. She can make her own decisions.

The reason the holier than thou types can't win this argument is that they come in with this "I know what's best for everyone else" attitude and try to dictate what decisions people will make. It's like mandating masks or vaccines.

The next argument will be that 90% of porn is sex trafficking, but no one can point to any reliable study saying it is anywhere near that. These are the same people that buy the old lie about the super bowl or the all star game being the biggest prostitute/sex trafficking event of the year. It's actually a little embarrassing that people who argue for limited government and following actual science don't check to see if these stories they hear are actually true.

Joe Boudain and Rebel

Porn is bad for men psychologically and physically; it's bad for women for all the obvious exploitative reasons. "We can't eradicate it completely therefore we shouldn't even try to" is the same non-sequitur used by libs who want abortion, drugs, or any other type of evil.

And you porn-addicts/enablers' appeals to libertarian principles are sort of reasonable superficially ("it's not hurting anyone", or "what I miserably and compulsively do in the confines of my *everywhere* is none of your business"). But then those arguments fall apart because, again, (1) evidence and real life shows it's bad for men because it changes them for the worse and (2) bad for women. Not to mention all the underage kids looking at it, who are able to do so because efforts to block porn and fought off by perverts and pimps (investors/producers).

What's harmful for individuals on a massive scale has structural consequences for society. That harm warrants a societal, coordinated response to stop or minimize that harm. A healthy society would recognize this.

Hurricane Laura said:

---

What about that whole free will thing? If you want to make a faith-based argument, you need to consider that free will is a part of all of those things. It was never the government's job, and it should never be the government's job, to tell people what not to do if it isn't hurting someone else. A girl who wants to create an OF page and make money is the same as the girl who wants to work at the local breastaurant. She can make her own decisions.

The reason the holier than thou types can't win this argument is that they come in with this "I know what's best for everyone else" attitude and try to dictate what decisions people will make. It's like mandating masks or vaccines.

The next argument will be that 90% of porn is sex trafficking, but no one can point to any reliable study saying it is anywhere near that. These are the same people that buy the old lie about the super bowl or the all star game being the biggest prostitute/sex trafficking event of the year. It's actually a little embarrassing that people who argue for limited government and following actual science don't check to see if these stories they hear are actually true.

---

You have exposed yourself as a libertarian and therefore someone who's opinions should be disregarded out of hand.

RebelE Infantry said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

I see no ill effects from divorcing the procreative and unitive nature of sex from it's physical expression. It's not like society is careening into a pansexual horror film or anything.

Any decent society would outlaw porn and consider pornographers for the depraved minions of satan that they are; but hell; if it pays the bills it can't be bad can it?

---

Well said.

Free and widely available porn is a psychological weapon to keep you docile and enslaved to your passions, change my mind (impossible). The regime loves that you are addicted to it, because then you are not dangerous. You were not made for sitting at home and jerking it to pixels on a screen. You were made for greatness. Act like it and quit now. There are tons of resources to help.

---

Extremely well said. Fixing this problem is an educational issue, not a legislative one.

Excellent response to points that contradict your original thesis.

LOYAL AG said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

I see no ill effects from divorcing the procreative and unitive nature of sex from it's physical expression. It's not like society is careening into a pansexual horror film or anything.

Any decent society would outlaw porn and consider pornographers for the depraved minions of satan that they are; but hell; if it pays the bills it can't be bad can it?

---

Well said.

Free and widely available porn is a psychological weapon to keep you docile and enslaved to your passions, change my mind (impossible). The regime loves that you are addicted to it, because then you are not dangerous. You were not made for sitting at home and jerking it to pixels on a screen. You were made for greatness. Act like it and quit now. There are tons of resources to help.

---

Extremely well said. Fixing this problem is an educational issue, not a legislative one.

---

What if I told you it's both? /Morpheus.jpg

Ah, the no true Scotsman fallacy. Well played.

No healthy society would need to regulate this. See how that works?

Do you consider our society to be "healthy"? On really any level?

RebelE Infantry said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

I see no ill effects from divorcing the procreative and unitive nature of sex from it's physical expression. It's not like society is careening into a pansexual horror film or anything.

Any decent society would outlaw porn and consider pornographers for the depraved minions of satan that they are; but hell; if it pays the bills it can't be bad can it?

---

Yep because laws work perfectly well. I mean we outlawed alcohol, weed is illegal in most states, kids can't smoke cigarettes, etc etc etc. As a result none of these things happen.

Laws are a guaranteed failure for porn just like all of the above. The only purpose of passing a law for any of those things is to make people feel better. They're a lot likes masks in that regard. Hopeless virtue signaling that's guaranteed to fail, but you feel good because you did SOMETHING, right?

So what's the solution? What if I told you there's not one?

---

Ah, the old "it probably won't work 100% so we shouldn't even bother" argument.

There are ways to put an end to the vast majority of porn. But bourgeois coomers and "muh free market" libertarians get a bit squeamish

---

I had to do a double take when I realized this was the same guy I responded to a minute ago. How do you go from "take responsibility for your actions" to "laws probably won't work" in a span of five minutes? There's no probably here. Laws do not work. Do. Not. Teach people how to take responsibility for their porn habits and cut off a vile industry at the knees by reducing demand for it. That's what your first post said. Then your reversed course to suggest we resort to legislative solutions. Why the inconsistency?

I know a guy who makes about 80 grand a month on only fans. The amount of money these people make is insane.

It's both. If you have something that is so pervasive and so dangerous to the foundation of society itself, it is absolutely the job of government to take actions to put an end to it. That's literally the whole point of government.

Hurricane Laura said:

---

What about that whole free will thing? If you want to make a faith-based argument, you need to consider that free will is a part of all of those things. It was never the government's job, and it should never be the government's job, to tell people what not to do if it isn't hurting someone else. A girl who wants to create an OF page and make money is the same as the girl who wants to work at the local breastaurant. She can make her own decisions.

The reason the holier than thou types can't win this argument is that they come in with this "I know what's best for everyone else" attitude and try to dictate what decisions people will make. It's like mandating masks or vaccines.

The next argument will be that 90% of porn is sex trafficking, but no one can point to any reliable study saying it is anywhere near that. These are the same people that buy the old lie about the super bowl or the all star game being the biggest prostitute/sex trafficking event of the year. It's actually a little embarrassing that people who argue for limited government and following actual science don't check to see if these stories they hear are actually true.

---

Start going down the free will rabbit hole and you'll realize that the primary reason for society and for laws is to stop people who would use their free will for bad. Some people do know what's best for other people. That's why we don't have a democracy, that's why the most democratic form of government that's possible has been a Republic, where people elect someone to advocate for their best interests.

LOYAL AG said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

I see no ill effects from divorcing the procreative and unitive nature of sex from it's physical expression. It's not like society is careening into a pansexual horror film or anything.

Any decent society would outlaw porn and consider pornographers for the depraved minions of satan that they are; but hell; if it pays the bills it can't be bad can it?

---

Yep because laws work perfectly well. I mean we outlawed alcohol, weed is illegal in most states, kids can't smoke cigarettes, etc etc etc. As a result none of these things happen.

Laws are a guaranteed failure for porn just like all of the above. The only purpose of passing a law for any of those things is to make people feel better. They're a lot likes masks in that regard. Hopeless virtue signaling that's guaranteed to fail, but you feel good because you did SOMETHING, right?

So what's the solution? What if I told you there's not one?

---

Ah, the old "it probably won't work 100% so we shouldn't even bother" argument.

There are ways to put an end to the vast majority of porn. But bourgeois coomers and "muh free market" libertarians get a bit squeamish

---

I had to do a double take when I realized this was the same guy I responded to a minute ago. How do you go from "take responsibility for your actions" to "laws probably won't work" in a span of five minutes? There's no probably here. Laws do not work. Do. Not. Teach people how to take responsibility for their porn habits and cut off a vile industry at the knees by reducing demand for it. That's what your first post said. Then your reversed course to suggest we resort to legislative solutions. Why the inconsistency?

---

How can you say laws don't work while maintaining to have a grasp of economics? Changing the risk/reward calculus always work. Lower the drinking age from 21 to 18 and see how many more 18 year olds drink. Cut off the head of people for going 1 mile an hour over 65 and see how many people still speed.

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

I know a guy who makes about 80 grand a month on only fans. The amount of money these people make is insane.

---

Interesting. However the fact of the matter is this is true for only the very top fraction of producers. Pretty much everyone else is selling their body, their dignity, and their soul for minimum wage. At best.

"teach people to take responsibility for their actions" = "Throw a copy of 'Atlas Shrugged' at the pink haired gender queer antifa soldier, and he'll see that you're right"

What do you do when people don't take responsibility for their actions?

You've already said no one is changing your mind, so I'm not going to try. Typical "conservative" that picks his own social issues to be liberal on and can't see why it contradicts other beliefs. If you believe that government should fix everything, then by all means argue for lockdowns and forced vaccination. Don't ***** when government takes away some of your freedom. Walk calmly to that train car over there.

To answer your question, the point is not whether it is healthy or not. The point Jason made was that if we were a healthy society, we would change things. So you made the predictable response - that we aren't healthy. The problem is that if we aren't healthy, then we can't change things. That's why it's a fallacy.

Joe Boudain said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

I see no ill effects from divorcing the procreative and unitive nature of sex from it's physical expression. It's not like society is careening into a pansexual horror film or anything.

Any decent society would outlaw porn and consider pornographers for the depraved minions of satan that they are; but hell; if it pays the bills it can't be bad can it?

---

Yep because laws work perfectly well. I mean we outlawed alcohol, weed is illegal in most states, kids can't smoke cigarettes, etc etc etc. As a result none of these things happen.

Laws are a guaranteed failure for porn just like all of the above. The only purpose of passing a law for any of those things is to make people feel better. They're a lot likes masks in that regard. Hopeless virtue signaling that's guaranteed to fail, but you feel good because you did SOMETHING, right?

So what's the solution? What if I told you there's not one?

---

Nothing works perfectly well. The prohibition of alcohol was wildly successful at decreasing the amount of alcohol consumed on a per capita basis. The prohibition of child pornography does a fantastic job of reducing the amount of child porn available. If child porn was legalized, it would explode all over the internet as the artificial barrier to supply would be removed and it would rise to fill demand.

The solution is not to let perfect be the enemy of good. This is the same argument that the democrats used against the wall. "You think it's going to stop ALL illegal immigration". Of course not, but it will be better. Yes, machine gun nests and shooting anyone who steps foot over the line would be a better deterrent, but we're not going to do that, nor should we do that.

---

There's a substantial difference between child porn and adult porn that being the age of consent. Generally speaking I would agree that 80% is better than 0%, that's a mindset I drill into my clients regularly. My bigger issue is I just want to see a victim before I declare something a crime. Yes the woman selling herself is harming herself snd the guy consuming is as well but that's their problem, not yours. This is the kind of thing the Democrats have given to Republicans as a faux win in the "culture" war knowing the trade off of expanded welfare spending was a much bigger real win in the long run. IMO that's how these things always seem to go.

Joe Boudain said:

---

"teach people to take responsibility for their actions" = "Throw a copy of 'Atlas Shrugged' at the pink haired gender queer antifa soldier, and he'll see that you're right"

What do you do when people don't take responsibility for their actions?

---

Eliminate them from my life.

Hurricane Laura said:

---

What about that whole free will thing? If you want to make a faith-based argument, you need to consider that free will is a part of all of those things. It was never the government's job, and it should never be the government's job, to tell people what not to do if it isn't hurting someone else. A girl who wants to create an OF page and make money is the same as the girl who wants to work at the local breastaurant. She can make her own decisions.

The reason the holier than thou types can't win this argument is that they come in with this "I know what's best for everyone else" attitude and try to dictate what decisions people will make. It's like mandating masks or vaccines.

The next argument will be that 90% of porn is sex trafficking, but no one can point to any reliable study saying it is anywhere near that. These are the same people that buy the old lie about the super bowl or the all star game being the biggest prostitute/sex trafficking event of the year. It's actually a little embarrassing that people who argue for limited government and following actual science don't check to see if these stories they hear are actually true.

---

Now do murder or robbery.

"But unlike those crimes, in pron there is no victim!" you might say. Reality and common sense are against you here. People in this thread are trying to explain who those victims are and what the broader societal implications are.

Hurricane Laura said:

---

You've already said no one is changing your mind, so I'm not going to try. Typical "conservative" that picks his own social issues to be liberal on and can't see why it contradicts other beliefs. If you believe that government should fix everything, then by all means argue for lockdowns and forced vaccination. Don't ***** when government takes away some of your freedom. Walk calmly to that train car over there.

To answer your question, the point is not whether it is healthy or not. The point Jason made was that if we were a healthy society, we would change things. So you made the predictable response - that we aren't healthy. The problem is that if we aren't healthy, then we can't change things. That's why it's a fallacy.

---

You have no clue what conservatism actually means. Conservatism has nothing to do with freedom or liberty; you were taught that lie with the left, who told you exactly what you were allowed to do, while you let them do whatever they wanted to do so you wouldn't be "hypocritical"

You thought you would win arguments by pointing our their hypocrisy, but no one cared while the left took over all of society.

Now we have "conservatives" arguing in favor of what would have been pipe dreams for the far left 15 years ago.

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

I know a guy who makes about 80 grand a month on only fans. The amount of money these people make is insane.

---

They don't make that much money. This guy is in the top 1% of the 1% on Onlyfans.

Here is the real distribution for income:

Onlyfans ranking % and how much actual money that corresponds to: pic.twitter.com/0BiL4NKADE

— Aella (@Aella_Girl) December 6, 2020

Quote: “The top 1% of accounts make 33% of all the money. The top 10% of accounts make 73%.. The Gini index of OnlyFans is 0.83. The most unequal society in the world, South Africa, has a Gini index of 0.68. OnlyFans is less equal than an ex-apartheid state.” pic.twitter.com/rDeaFkk0r4

— swarthy_pariah (@kiirukikuyu) December 7, 2020

Most people make absolutely nothing and ruin their lives for peanuts. It is absolutely an exploitation of naive women and men on both sides. Once something is on Onlyfans it is immediately downloaded and spread everywhere else. All it takes to do this is one single paying account.

Hurricane Laura said:

---

You've already said no one is changing your mind, so I'm not going to try. Typical "conservative" that picks his own social issues to be liberal on and can't see why it contradicts other beliefs. If you believe that government should fix everything, then by all means argue for lockdowns and forced vaccination. Don't ***** when government takes away some of your freedom. Walk calmly to that train car over there.

To answer your question, the point is not whether it is healthy or not. The point Jason made was that if we were a healthy society, we would change things. So you made the predictable response - that we aren't healthy. The problem is that if we aren't healthy, then we can't change things. That's why it's a fallacy.

---

Goodness gracious. It's almost like I can draw distinctions between good things and bad things and say "government should fix this specific problem over here, but not interfere over there." Weird, huh? It's a wild ride having rational thoughts.

LOYAL AG said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

"teach people to take responsibility for their actions" = "Throw a copy of 'Atlas Shrugged' at the pink haired gender queer antifa soldier, and he'll see that you're right"

What do you do when people don't take responsibility for their actions?

---

Eliminate them from my life.

---

How? The normal answer is by pulling up stakes and moving, which is why the cities have become urban warzones and decent people keep fleeing further and further out into the country.

Sure, in 30 years we'll be living rural Montana, but it shouldn't have to be like that.

Jason C. said:

---

Hurricane Laura said:

---

What about that whole free will thing? If you want to make a faith-based argument, you need to consider that free will is a part of all of those things. It was never the government's job, and it should never be the government's job, to tell people what not to do if it isn't hurting someone else. A girl who wants to create an OF page and make money is the same as the girl who wants to work at the local breastaurant. She can make her own decisions.

The reason the holier than thou types can't win this argument is that they come in with this "I know what's best for everyone else" attitude and try to dictate what decisions people will make. It's like mandating masks or vaccines.

The next argument will be that 90% of porn is sex trafficking, but no one can point to any reliable study saying it is anywhere near that. These are the same people that buy the old lie about the super bowl or the all star game being the biggest prostitute/sex trafficking event of the year. It's actually a little embarrassing that people who argue for limited government and following actual science don't check to see if these stories they hear are actually true.

---

Now do murder or robbery.

"But unlike those crimes, in pron there is no victim!" you might say. Reality and common sense are against you here. People in this thread are trying to explain who those victims are and what the broader societal implications are.

---

Who is the victim when a married couple make porn videos for onlyfans?

Agreed. The guy I know (keep in mind this is LA where people are pretty attractive) is top .1%. He's definitely the very rare exception.

And yes, a steep price to pay. I know he got fired from Facebook.

Themselves. What sort of man debases himself like that with his bride? Disgusting.

LOYAL AG said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

I see no ill effects from divorcing the procreative and unitive nature of sex from it's physical expression. It's not like society is careening into a pansexual horror film or anything.

Any decent society would outlaw porn and consider pornographers for the depraved minions of satan that they are; but hell; if it pays the bills it can't be bad can it?

---

Yep because laws work perfectly well. I mean we outlawed alcohol, weed is illegal in most states, kids can't smoke cigarettes, etc etc etc. As a result none of these things happen.

Laws are a guaranteed failure for porn just like all of the above. The only purpose of passing a law for any of those things is to make people feel better. They're a lot likes masks in that regard. Hopeless virtue signaling that's guaranteed to fail, but you feel good because you did SOMETHING, right?

So what's the solution? What if I told you there's not one?

---

Nothing works perfectly well. The prohibition of alcohol was wildly successful at decreasing the amount of alcohol consumed on a per capita basis. The prohibition of child pornography does a fantastic job of reducing the amount of child porn available. If child porn was legalized, it would explode all over the internet as the artificial barrier to supply would be removed and it would rise to fill demand.

The solution is not to let perfect be the enemy of good. This is the same argument that the democrats used against the wall. "You think it's going to stop ALL illegal immigration". Of course not, but it will be better. Yes, machine gun nests and shooting anyone who steps foot over the line would be a better deterrent, but we're not going to do that, nor should we do that.

---

There's a substantial difference between child porn and adult porn that being the age of consent. Generally speaking I would agree that 80% is better than 0%, that's a mindset I drill into my clients regularly. My bigger issue is I just want to see a victim before I declare something a crime. Yes the woman selling herself is harming herself snd the guy consuming is as well but that's their problem, not yours. This is the kind of thing the Democrats have given to Republicans as a faux win in the "culture" war knowing the trade off of expanded welfare spending was a much bigger real win in the long run. IMO that's how these things always seem to go.

---

You're starting an argument that has nothing to do with the argument we're having. You're drawing a distinction between the difference in child porn and adult porn through an extremely arbitrary level of "age of consent". That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about whether laws impact behavior, which is a resounding yes.

You can't say that "laws don't work" and then argue that child porn and not adult porn should be criminalized due to age of consent.

I don't give a **** about welfare spending. The economy is tangential to the culture war. We need to fix the culture, then we can fix the economy.

Joe Boudain said:

---

Salute The Marines said:

---

Jason C. said:

---

Hurricane Laura said:

---

What about that whole free will thing? If you want to make a faith-based argument, you need to consider that free will is a part of all of those things. It was never the government's job, and it should never be the government's job, to tell people what not to do if it isn't hurting someone else. A girl who wants to create an OF page and make money is the same as the girl who wants to work at the local breastaurant. She can make her own decisions.

The reason the holier than thou types can't win this argument is that they come in with this "I know what's best for everyone else" attitude and try to dictate what decisions people will make. It's like mandating masks or vaccines.

The next argument will be that 90% of porn is sex trafficking, but no one can point to any reliable study saying it is anywhere near that. These are the same people that buy the old lie about the super bowl or the all star game being the biggest prostitute/sex trafficking event of the year. It's actually a little embarrassing that people who argue for limited government and following actual science don't check to see if these stories they hear are actually true.

---

Now do murder or robbery.

"But unlike those crimes, in pron there is no victim!" you might say. Reality and common sense are against you here. People in this thread are trying to explain who those victims are and what the broader societal implications are.

---

Who is the victim when a married couple make porn videos for onlyfans?

---

The married couple, their ostensible children, the person watching it, society as a whole.

---