Teelie
Fish Food
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2011
- Messages
- 24,301
- Reaction score
- 7,872
- Points
- 118
It's just a publicity stunt to show he's doing something about a percieved problem that doesn't exist.
While rape is real and there is real abuse in porn, it's not all the same thing. Meaning if you allow fantasy rape to exist you justify real rape in some kind of bizarre logic. Or that fantasy rape scenarios lead to real rape.
In some cases it might but I'm always dubious of claims backing these kinds of studies which show a clear result because there is usually a cloud covering the methods used to prove it (to use a similar example, the MPAA/RIAA and piracy, depending on which study you read the results are literally polar opposites in their effect on the market).
And all of this is under the guise of "protecting" women and children without actually making any effort to do so. This way he can say he's done something (banning rape fantasies imparticular, porn in general) and by the time it's shown to have at best a minimal effect (more likely none) on any kind of sexual violence it'll be forgotten about.
Real effort would require real world actions and changes that he won't or can't pass into law. So this is the visible alternative. All the praise, none of the effort or results for his display.
To forbid a freedom, especially one you disagree with, is the worst way to accomplish change in society.
And here's an alternative thought: Should we ban simulated murder as well? If you do that, then how many movies, television series, books, etc are you going to have to ban to enforce it?
While rape is real and there is real abuse in porn, it's not all the same thing. Meaning if you allow fantasy rape to exist you justify real rape in some kind of bizarre logic. Or that fantasy rape scenarios lead to real rape.
In some cases it might but I'm always dubious of claims backing these kinds of studies which show a clear result because there is usually a cloud covering the methods used to prove it (to use a similar example, the MPAA/RIAA and piracy, depending on which study you read the results are literally polar opposites in their effect on the market).
And all of this is under the guise of "protecting" women and children without actually making any effort to do so. This way he can say he's done something (banning rape fantasies imparticular, porn in general) and by the time it's shown to have at best a minimal effect (more likely none) on any kind of sexual violence it'll be forgotten about.
Real effort would require real world actions and changes that he won't or can't pass into law. So this is the visible alternative. All the praise, none of the effort or results for his display.
To forbid a freedom, especially one you disagree with, is the worst way to accomplish change in society.
And here's an alternative thought: Should we ban simulated murder as well? If you do that, then how many movies, television series, books, etc are you going to have to ban to enforce it?