Pornography is pernicious, insidious and destructive. Men use it because most have animalistic, primordial sex-drives and they are lazy. Even within long-term successful relationships, it provides rapid release: sexual gratification without pressure, romance, complication or fear of failure. Typically, it’s got little to do with domination, patriarchy or any pseudo-psychological bullshit. That doesn’t make it a positive participant in those relationships. Rather, it damages them, although not necessarily irrevocably. Of course, the use of pornography by pubescent and adolescent boys is dangerous. It has the potential to pervert and cauterise natural sexual behaviour. In 2025, we are all sitting around discussing the impact of porn, while we allow kids to access it for free, as and when they wish. It is a desertion of societal and parental responsibility we will all live to regret. Unfortunately - and most certainly to adolescents - women appear to be fully complicit in the production of pornography. This is not assisted by developments like ‘Only Fans’ which are promoted as ‘empowering’ women, because they appear to exert an element of control. This too, is utter bullshit. Boys and men need to understand that - like war and killing people - pornography is a bad thing to be avoided. But try telling that to a spotty teenager. Good luck.
Porn, like trans, is a phenomenon spoken of with much feeling and little fact. There are innumerable quantitative studies of the fact that the rise of porn parallels the fall of sexual violence, country by country state by state, county by county.
Woe be it to the sociologist who calls up facts, as they suffer the same fate of those who point out that trans is merely men mimicking women.
One can start with the famous “Meese Commission Report on Pornograohy”, a select committee of carefully selected men and women intended to underscore new laws to eradicate porn, but found that other than not being palatable, they could find zero evidence of being harmful. That was early 80’s. The research spread worldwide and intensified, reiterating the same remarkable finding.
The Dworkin/Mackinnon strain of dislike culminated - in my reading and research on a biography of an artist - with a statement by an otherwise intelligent-seeming lawyer that a drawing of a nude man made by a gay man for other gay men was “misogynistic” because the bear in a leather jacket was insufficiently effeminate. The delusion that porn is evil, like the trans delusion, leaks out all over the place.
Does the author seriously want to decry what gay men draw for other gay men to enjoy? Write? Act? I’ve known many porn actors in my decades. Not one didn’t enjoy it and wouldn’t do it again if they could.
Evil porn brought together isolated gay men and lesbians in the 50’s, 60’s, 70’s and showed them that other people had sexual feelings like they did. Do read some history.
But on to female porn.
The most viciously anti-female porn (let’s be hyperbolic, as is the crowd) was written by a woman and reached a global audience in the hundred of millions, a series of books surpassing Lord of the Rings & Harry Potter - I’m speak of course of “50 Shades of Grey”. Yet, no hue and outcry. Anti-female or perhaps misandrist, it’s hard to tell them apart in the Dworkin-MacKinnon alternate universe, since all sex is rape and all men are rapists, a staggeringly misandrist view.
Zombie Apocalypse movies show mass scenes of people being disemboweled and eaten, Saw movies show people tortured to death, and there is worse. Double Anal penetration seems, well, relaxing by contrast.
I enjoy these anti-porn things coming out periodically, I’ve seen nothing new under the sun. Dislike is not the same as evil.
Pornography is pernicious, insidious and destructive. Men use it because most have animalistic, primordial sex-drives and they are lazy. Even within long-term successful relationships, it provides rapid release: sexual gratification without pressure, romance, complication or fear of failure. Typically, it’s got little to do with domination, patriarchy or any pseudo-psychological bullshit. That doesn’t make it a positive participant in those relationships. Rather, it damages them, although not necessarily irrevocably. Of course, the use of pornography by pubescent and adolescent boys is dangerous. It has the potential to pervert and cauterise natural sexual behaviour. In 2025, we are all sitting around discussing the impact of porn, while we allow kids to access it for free, as and when they wish. It is a desertion of societal and parental responsibility we will all live to regret. Unfortunately - and most certainly to adolescents - women appear to be fully complicit in the production of pornography. This is not assisted by developments like ‘Only Fans’ which are promoted as ‘empowering’ women, because they appear to exert an element of control. This too, is utter bullshit. Boys and men need to understand that - like war and killing people - pornography is a bad thing to be avoided. But try telling that to a spotty teenager. Good luck.
Very interesting to get a male perspective, thank you Julie.
Porn, like trans, is a phenomenon spoken of with much feeling and little fact. There are innumerable quantitative studies of the fact that the rise of porn parallels the fall of sexual violence, country by country state by state, county by county.
Woe be it to the sociologist who calls up facts, as they suffer the same fate of those who point out that trans is merely men mimicking women.
One can start with the famous “Meese Commission Report on Pornograohy”, a select committee of carefully selected men and women intended to underscore new laws to eradicate porn, but found that other than not being palatable, they could find zero evidence of being harmful. That was early 80’s. The research spread worldwide and intensified, reiterating the same remarkable finding.
The Dworkin/Mackinnon strain of dislike culminated - in my reading and research on a biography of an artist - with a statement by an otherwise intelligent-seeming lawyer that a drawing of a nude man made by a gay man for other gay men was “misogynistic” because the bear in a leather jacket was insufficiently effeminate. The delusion that porn is evil, like the trans delusion, leaks out all over the place.
Does the author seriously want to decry what gay men draw for other gay men to enjoy? Write? Act? I’ve known many porn actors in my decades. Not one didn’t enjoy it and wouldn’t do it again if they could.
Evil porn brought together isolated gay men and lesbians in the 50’s, 60’s, 70’s and showed them that other people had sexual feelings like they did. Do read some history.
But on to female porn.
The most viciously anti-female porn (let’s be hyperbolic, as is the crowd) was written by a woman and reached a global audience in the hundred of millions, a series of books surpassing Lord of the Rings & Harry Potter - I’m speak of course of “50 Shades of Grey”. Yet, no hue and outcry. Anti-female or perhaps misandrist, it’s hard to tell them apart in the Dworkin-MacKinnon alternate universe, since all sex is rape and all men are rapists, a staggeringly misandrist view.
Zombie Apocalypse movies show mass scenes of people being disemboweled and eaten, Saw movies show people tortured to death, and there is worse. Double Anal penetration seems, well, relaxing by contrast.
I enjoy these anti-porn things coming out periodically, I’ve seen nothing new under the sun. Dislike is not the same as evil.
Surprisingly.