Put Your Body And That Of Your Nearest And Dearest Where Your Mouth Is

In light of last night's comments, I'm, again, going to point out the key hypocrisy in the pseudo-liberal, pseudo-left pose on the alleged harmlessness of pornography because the volunteer guinea pig of pseudo-lefty idiocy who comes here made it clear that they idiots who claim that porn is OK and good, and groovy and great don't really believe that, themselves.

The claim that porn is innocuous and good and some kind of visual of theatrical ert, etc.  That producing, directing, selling, making a fortune off of porn is swell and good and the emblematic flower of the First Amendment instead of an exploitation and endangerment of the people photographed and filmed for that purpose is seen when they are pressed to assert that if their loved ones, their spouse, their parents, their grandparents, their siblings THEIR CHILDREN took up acting in porn that it would be perfectly OK with them.  I started asking that question of phony lefties a number of years ago and have only found two who were willing to lie, asserting that it would be OK with them.  And they were lying.  Steve Simels was one of the two and his complaint that I asked that question in regard to his girl friend was over the line just proves that he really doesn't see porn the way he claims he does WHEN IT ISN'T SOMEONE UNATTACHED TO HIM WHOSE LIFE AND BODY IS PUT ON THE LINE.  When it's someone he cares about (assuming such a person exists) or who he is having sex with, it wouldn't be OK with him if a male porn actor who had had sex with other porn actors, women or, perhaps both sexes, had sex with the person he was having sex with.  When someone puts that question in his face he's definitely NOT OK with that, though it's fine with him if someone he doesn't know is used that way.

Really, the phony-liberal, phony-lefty attitude towards prorn, that it is anything other than a degrading, objectifying, immoral use of other peoples' bodies as raw material, prostitution and, not rarely, sex slavery sold to voyeurs, that it is good and a flowering of the First Amendment, is not at all unlike the war monger view of war, that it's OK and great as long as it is the life and body of someone they don't care about which is destroyed, not infrequently for no motive higher than the profit derived from war.  

Any liberal who claims porn is anything but what it really is is a total fraud, the phony left which has held that line since the 1950s if not before is a left that really can't be believed or trusted on anything because they have no more integrity than found in the Republicans in the Congress or the Trump regime.  Yet such "liberals" and "lefties" largely populate the writing staffs of most lefty magazines and who make up the staffs of most allegedly liberal media.  It's no wonder that such people have destroyed liberalism as an effective force in the United States and elsewhere.   I think they should all be asked to declare if they'd be OK with their spouse or sex partner or their parents, siblings AND CHILDREN being the ones having sex at the directors instruction in front of the camera, if they'd be OK with having the porn industry at their children's career day at high school or college.  If they really, truly believe what they claim to, they'd have to say it was OK with their loved ones being used by the porn industry and going on record as saying that.  If they wouldn't they should really stop pretending their position is true because it's obvious it's only true when it's not someone they care about being fucked and infected for profit.

Update:  Putting It Simply For The Simple Minded

If people who claim that pornography is a. innocuous, b. beneficial, c. good, d. not in any way immoral really believe what they claim to then

they would have no problem with someone asking them if they're OK with their nearest and dearest taking up being penetrated for the camera by the kind of men who do that in the world of porn.

If they really are OK with porn, as they assert, they must think it's OK for the porn industry to recruit its raw material at high school jobs days, college work fairs, and in other ways.  In fact, they might need to claim that the people involved in such an industry have what they'd assert is a "right" to do that.

If they really believe what they did they'd have no problem with exposing their children or other children of any age to pornography, they would have no problem with their spouse or child inviting pornogaphers to their family home where they might encourage people to consider appearing in porn.
That the, generally, upper class and upper-middle class media people who push the lie that porn is OK would never, ever agree to those things, it proves their pose is, in fact, exactly the same kind of thing as the war monger cohort asserting that wars are great AS LONG AS THEIR NEAREST AND DEAREST GET A DEFERMENT FOR BONE SPURS OR ASS BLISTERS OR BECAUSE THEY ARE GOING TO COLLEGE.

I don't think there is any issue that so obviously exposes the fraudulence of large parts of the pseudo-liberalism that has reigned since the 1960s.  I doubt Joel Gora or the other champions of "free speech,"  who have made money from the media that has benefitted from such "free speech" would ever be OK with these kinds of things.

Update:  I wonder if Duncan Black cares enough to regret that his blog attracts so many really stupid, superficial people, that the intelligent people who used to go there, apart from less than a handful who go there ever less, apparently, fled from it years ago.

I picture him as playing with model trains a lot, these days.  Or maybe just fantasizing about them. Setting them up might be something like work.

In other words, I don't care what they say.  They don't read, they don't think, they don't test the ideas they adopt, they are stupid.