What the hell Iceland

[toranokaze]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/genevei...will-ban-porn/

“Iceland is taking a very progressive approach that no other democratic country has tried,” said Professor Gail Dines, an expert on pornography and speaker at a recent conference at Reykjavik University. “It is looking a pornography from a new position – from the perspective of the harm it does to the women who appear in it and as a violation of their civil rights.” - See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/genevei....809grpYN.dpuf

I find this wrong on so many levels.
This violates the voices of so many and will crush legitimate websites.

What is pornography really and who gets to determine it.

How does a woman who CHOOSES to be in pornography harmed?
And if a woman who CHOOSES to be in pornography harmed how does the same thing not harm men.
Are men magically immunity to the "bad" porn.

This is another case of demonized male heterosexuality and denying women sexual agency.

[xoxoxoBruce]

That's what happens when feminists get power.
They disrepect sex workers.
They make wrong assumtions about what women want.
They make lousy sandwiches.

[ZenGum]

It started with a typing error and the fallout of the financial collapse.

They meant to write that they would make life hell for bankers.

[Gravdigr]

Originally Posted by toranokaze

What is pornography really...

I'm not sure...but, I know it when I see it.

[toranokaze]

Originally Posted by Gravdigr

I'm not sure...but, I know it when I see it.

I don't need no lemon test

[DanaC]

Madness. The thing is, if they're really interested in women's welfare and the impact of porn on women in society, the last thing they should be doing is driving it underground and entrenching it in organised crime.

There are unscrupulous bastards trafficking women about Russia and Europe and forcing them to engage in movie making. There are also people making a legitimate career choice and using the thing they have most control over, their body, to make a living. Rather than banning it they need to legitimise it and apply a worker's protection and rights approach.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Rather than banning it they need to legitimise it and apply a worker's protection and rights approach.

Dana for Queen of the World.
Hip Hip Hooray.

[Sundae]

These days most of the women working in Amsterdam's Red Light District are Eastern European. Apart from those in the zwarte area (I'm pretty sure you can work it out.)

If it's a positive choice, how come Dutch women aren't making it?

[tw]

Originally Posted by toranokaze

How does a woman who CHOOSES to be in pornography harmed?

When men who often visit such establishments also pass laws that make her job illegal. Then she cannot obtain protection from the law.

Same reasoning also "knew" that women who ski jump would harm their reproductive organs.

Same reasoning said a woman who is raped is less likely to become pregnant due to biology that was invented by wacko extremist rhetoric.

Same reasoning said it is good for men to probe women with sticks of any kind (organic or inorganic) at any time. So Indiana extremists passed a law that makes it legal and requires it.

Same reasoning also knew Michelle Obama's bare shoulders would subvert your morality.

Good is having wacko extremists working hard on rules that protect us. While blaming government for making too many rules. Explains why so many of us reelect these tea partiers or contribute to their church.

Ironically, some of those who strongly advocate these rules were also found to be pedophiles. Need statue of limitations on those crimes so that pedophiles cannot be prosecuted. Or recalled them to Rome where the Vatican protected them. Men who know what is best for women.

[ZenGum]

When men who often visit such establishments also pass laws that make her job illegal. Then she cannot obtain protection from the law.

There was a recent case in Sweden where a chap was busted for buying sex from a prostitute, which is illegal there. The cops thought he looked familiar. He was, he is (er, WAS) the specific prosecutor to whom such crimes should be reported.

[ZenGum]

Still, there is a genuine case to be made against pornography, not so much that it harms the women involved in making it, but that it harms all the women in the society in which men consume it.

The argument goes that if men watch porn, in which women are portrayed as sex objects, those men are more likely to treat women as sex objects in real life. Not so much an instant conversion from sensitive new age wanker to chauvinistic rapist, but part of the background of culture that makes chauvinism and objectification and rape all the easier, psychologically.

It's a plausible claim, but does it really happen like that? This needs empirical investigation, and that turns out to be very difficult. Whenever researchers try to do a study assessing how men view and treat women in correlation with whether they have viewed pornography or not, they have a terrible time trying to create a control group. Why? because they can't find any men who have never viewed porn.

That alone should wake up the Icelanders about the futility of this ban.

All this gender-political discussion has me rather tired. So if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go browse some pics on tumbler.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I thought that was strange. The cops say they got a tip and waited outside until he came out, then arrested him. I know he fessed up but what about evidence? Where's the proof? Arrested on a phone tip.

[tw]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

The argument goes that if men watch porn, in which women are portrayed as sex objects, those men are more likely to treat women as sex objects in real life.

The conclusion demonstrates how one is educated by rhetoric. Information with numbers suggests that prostitution reduces rates of sexual violence. No research says it increases that violence. But many know it must because so many entertain their emotions rather than first demand the numbers. After all, god said so. So it must be evil.

I have yet to see a conclusive study either way. But all should have contempt for those who know prostitution increases violence against women only because some wacko extremist or brainwashed moralist said so. Adults need facts before knowing something is evil.

After millenniums, nothing proves prostitution and pornography promote violence. However making that trade illegal turns its employees into targets (victims) unprotected by the law. That law, more than anything else, appears to condom violence against women. Especially when the women are from some distant country without basic knowledge of the language, their rights, or access to helpful assistance.

Humans need sex. No wacko morality or church edict (ie priesthood) will change that. Just as banning alcohol never ‘cured’ that need.

[ZenGum]

Indeed, it's an empirical matter.

Mind you, pornography and prostitution are somewhat different.

appears to condom violence against women.

Pagin Dr Freud, Paging Dr Freud...

[tw]

Important to a 'good or bad' of pornography and prostitution is one key factor. Is she a willing participant? Often unknown with pornography. Usually but not always known with prostitution. But a willing participant clearly and obviously does not exist in pedophilia. Therein lies a boundary line that defines what is vicious and destructive verses what may be unharmful or even necessary.

One type of sex industry product - pedophilia - clearly is about a fundamental violation of human rights. Making that completely different from adult prostitution or pornography. Demonstrates how to determine (conclude) before condemning or permitting certain economic activities.