List of prominent anti-pornographers

[Major Nikon]

Last edited Mon Dec 16, 2013, 08:33 AM - Edit history (5)

Here's my list of anti-pornographers. The purpose of this list is to counter the notion that the "sex negative" label is unfair to anti-pornographers. I'm not so sure this is the case. The trend of anti-pornographers seems to be either neo-Victorian (no sex outside of heterosexual marriage) or anti-PIV(sex). I'm sure there must be exceptions, but not many it seems.

Here's the rules.

1) To be an anti-pornographer, the person must advocate some sort of banning/censorship/suppression/reparation scheme. Simply condemning pornography doesn't count.
2) Prominence requires someone with a real name (not anonymous bloggers) who comes from academia or is a widely read author on the subject and spends/spent a considerable amount of their time on the subject.

Here's my list. Feel free to add your own. If you don't like my rules, please start your own thread. I'm not talking about people who don't fit that criteria. The person can be living or dead. If someone thinks a person on this list doesn't fit the criteria, I'm open to modifying it.

1) Judith Reisman
2) Ed Meese
3) Charles Keating
4) Susan Brownmiller
5) Andrea Dworkin
6) Mary Anne Layden
7) Catharine MacKinnon
8) Gail Dines
9) Jerry Falwell
10) Laura Schlessinger
11) Sheila Jeffreys

Edited to add:

12) Phyllis Schlafly
13) James Dobson
14) Rick Santorum
15) Michele Bachmann
16) Shelly Lubben

[Warren DeMontague]

1. Oh, yeah, "Dr" Laura.

What a piece of work, she is.

[Major Nikon]

2. They all are

I could care less if someone wants to say porn is icky, or immoral, or whatever, so long as they are not advocating suppression. That's what freedom of speech is all about.

If someone is advocating suppression, then you're talking about something else entirely. Suppression requires trading freedom for something else. Those who want to claim it isn't are just wrong. I place a very high value on freedom. There are valid reasons for suppressing things. We don't allow children free access to opiates for obvious reasons, nor should we. However, suppression should ALWAYS require justification, regardless of whether it's pot, porn, cigarettes, alcohol, or whatever. Simply the claim that you don't like something, or you think it's icky, or your religious tome says it's bad is not good enough. Those are moral arguments. In a free society, nobody should have to argue for allowance. That is a bassackwards way of looking at things. In order to suppress something you'd best have a damn good reason for doing so. It shouldn't be something abstract like you think it poisons the culture. Those are bullshit arguments based on morality. It should be something that you can demonstrate that shows a positive link between cause and effect. It should be something substantial. Something that has a negative impact on a few is not sufficient justification to deny it from the many. Alcohol turns some people who have addictive tendencies into alcoholics. That doesn't mean alcohol should be suppressed from people who might want it and suffer no ill effects.

[westerebus]

3. James Dobson of Focus on the Family.

Mike Huckabee

[Major Nikon]

8. Does Huckabee regularly talk about suppression?

[westerebus]

11. Mostly dog whistle.

But, " Defenders of pornography point to the Constitution...but, the Supreme Court affirmed obscenity is not protected speech" from his book Living Beyond Your Lifetime. Oct 2000

"All the various manifestations of pornography...promote a damaged outlook on sexuality...and invite incursions on the security and liberty of us all" from his book Kids Killing Kids. June 1998

No one has been able to get a hold of his sermons from back in the day when the minister wasn't running for political office.

He's a media savvy Ed Meese. IMHO

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

15. Suckabee is a master of seeming perfectly reasonable....

....while being a fire and brimstone nut job.

[westerebus]

17. True that.

He didn't make the cut though.

He's a tricksy one for sure.

[Upton]

4. Pat Robertson..

“It is an addiction that is worse than cocaine and heroin,” Robertson warned. “You have to make a covenant with your eyes, you’re not going to watch this stuff. If you’ve got these channels on your TV, you’ve got to cancel them because that stuff will come on. And regular movie channels, next thing you know it’s 11 o’clock, 12 o’clock at night and they start showing this stuff.”

He concluded by offering a prayer for viewers who wanted to “free” from porn: “Lord, in Jesus name, I come to you and I confess to you that my desires have been stimulated by pornography. You know what I’m made of. You made me a sexual being. But, Lord, I have been over the edge and I need help.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/11/08/pat-robertson-quizzes-female-anchor-about-her-porn-habits/

[Major Nikon]

6. Not all social conservatives are anti-pornographers

I'm not sure if Pat Robertson is an anti-pornographer, maybe he is. Certainly he has some shit for brains ideas on the subject. If he regularly advocates for banning/censorship/suppression/reparation let me know and I'll add him to the list.

[Upton]

12. Okay..be that way...

I still think Robertson should qualify just on general principle, but it appears technically you're correct.

[Major Nikon]

14. He certainly deserves honorable mention for asshattery

[LadyHawkAZ]

5. Phyllis Schlafly

[Major Nikon]

7. Good one

[Major Nikon]

9. The benefits of this list

When someone here advocates for suppression, you can reference this list and say here's your allies.

[opiate69]

10. The Frothy One himself...

Rick Santorum

[opiate69]

16. The undisputed Queen of Bat-shit lunacy...

Michele Bachmann

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

19. I think Rmoney signed the same pledge.

When he was on his "I'll do absolutely anything to be President" tour.

[opiate69]

21. Yup.. IIRC, all if the Puke candidates did, except for maybe Huntsman...

[Major Nikon]

18. Here's what it's really about

I issued a challenge in GD for anyone to come up with a prominent anti-pornographer who WASN'T sex negative. Nobody could come up with one. Lots of people replied. Without exception, they attacked the question without ever answering it.

Nobody could come up with a name.

Not one.

And I'm not trying to say there aren't some. But if there are, I don't believe there are that many and if nobody can come up with any you have to wonder how popular they are to begin with.

The point is where this stuff comes from is a sex negative ideology which is either right wing or left wing. So perhaps completely different ideology, but somehow both are meeting in the middle and to some extent supporting each other directly or indirectly. All of it is about denying self agency to women (and men). Everyone should realize this is dangerous and wrong, just like Betty Freidan said it was.

[loli phabay]

20. there is definetly a you cant have more fun than me.vibe about it

It may be dressed up in many terms but it is all about forcing people to conform to tjeir ideals about sex.

[libodem]

22. What an awful list

I have no horse in this race but I did run across this today for something to consider.

http://www.gq.com/blogs/the-feed/2013/11/10-reasons-why-you-should-quit-watching-porn.html

[Major Nikon]

23. I've mentioned similar studies myself

However, the idea that porn is an addiction rather than a compulsion is lacking. The DSM certainly doesn't list it as such, so those who claim it is and run with it certainly aren't being candid with the facts. The article conveniently excludes the data that shows moderate use of porn has no negative effects, so one has to wonder how objective stories like this are. I think people do need to know there is at least the possibility of negative personal effects with overuse, but the reality is that some people are just inclined towards addictions and compulsions while others are not. Not everyone who drinks becomes an alcoholic, but some will. Not everyone who gambles will loose everything they have, but some will. It's pretty disingenuous to underscore the minority of those who will have problems with something while ignoring the majority who won't. I look at it the same as drugs and other things. Maybe some people have just figured out that life sucks and their additions and/or compulsions are preferable. The idea that everyone in that situation wants out is not a good one. I tend to stay out of issues that are about what people do with their own bag of meat. If it's a big enough problem, help should be available to those who want it. Beyond that what someone else does with their own body is none of my business.

Also remember this list is about those who want to suppress by force of law. Boycotting is a remedy that I have no issues with so long as people aren't channeling bigotries or bigots to make their case.

[libodem]

24. Good thoughts

Everything in moderation. I wonder what constitutes a 'problem'? Seems like some wives have a nervous breakdown when they find out the husband does it. It becomes such an issue that they practically feel cheated on. Then I suspect the husband, 'promises' to comply with a request to abstain. If he gets 'caught' again, does that mean a dealbreaker and divorce?

Single guys would be different? Nobody cares but them.
They might feel guilty for some reason and find they can't quit? I'm making up stuff here. But I hear you on the compulsion vs addiction. Not everything is an addiction. Especially the whole sex addiction angle for say, cheating behavior.

I just thought the article had some points about requiring more and different stimuli to feel something. It could make real intimate relations less gratifying if one needed it to get interested. I understand the visual route for stimulation but it seems so shallow compared to the deapth of having your mind stimulated with ideas and concepts and understanding that creat excitement mentally between two people. I need the intellectual stimulation or its a no go. Not the face. Not the body. It's the mental and the emotional. The connection.

[Major Nikon]

25. I don't remember anyone trying to correlate the commercial availability of vibrators and divorce

Although I'm sure some tried.

I suspect most women would find this kind of shit highly offensive. It really isn't any better when the goose and gander roles are reversed. Lots of people masturbate. Some do it a lot. This is true for both sexes. To pathologize it for one and not the other seems a bit wrong.

[libodem]

26. I would think

That a female could become tuned into the instant gratification of Mr twister and the dancing bear and maybe simple thrusting wouldn't bring her to climax, but I doubt it would be divorce reasons. I don't think it would be totally out of the realm of possibility that a guy might feel inferior or be jealous of the competition?

I'm speaking hypothetically here and in my examples above. I'm not here to pick q fight about what ever floats a guys boat. I've heard, say in radio call in shows, wives in huge amounts of emotional distress over the guy looking at porn. Seems to freak some ladies out. And you hear the occasional guy worried about moderating his habit. I'm taking a wild guess that it may generate a bit of guilt and shame in say a religious type male.

I don't care what people do or how they do it. It really isn't my business. I do like discussing human behavior and gender/relationship related ideas.

[Major Nikon]

28. Men tend not to be intimidated by vibrators

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/03/vibrators-use-men-women_n_1074017.html

I think people would be a lot happier if they stopped trying to repress their sexuality and the sexuality of their partners. Figure out what does it for you and involve your partner in it and encourage them to do the same. Expecting your partner to conform to your idea of sexuality is not always the best idea and kinda leads to spending a lot of time worrying about something that takes up very little time.

[libodem]

29. Interesting

This study is almost opposite of the first link. Back to the original list of repression-ist types. They all seem very conservative in their views about women's sexuality.

I personally don't get the penchant for the rape porn wars going on in GD. Is there really any such thing?

I hid them all. I wish I could talk without calling anyone out in person or by group. And I don't want to be that woman considered a traitor to her sex because I don't care if men like porn. It's a weird position to be in. I've never thought it was a big feminist issue. I don't find it to be the main issue on other sites. Is it a fetish on DU driven by certain posters? What is the agenda? I don't know why this is the hill we all have to die on?

[Major Nikon]

30. Evidently it's an issue that has resulted in a lot of divorce and/or marital difficulties

So it's not hard to figure out that there's a lot of hard feelings going on for both sides of the gender divide. Interestingly it seems to be a non-issue within the LGBT community, but I'm speculating on this.

[libodem]

27. I just checked the link

I hear what he's saying and it's not as offensive as one might think. I had a friend who has passed, but one of her stories involved her ex husband opening up a playboy and putting it on her chest during sex. I heard that story more than once. It must have really gotten to her. Hurt her feelings.

[TreasonousBastard]

32. I understand why he's an ex...

there are a zillion bad jokes a bout that sort of thing, but it's really disturbing to hear that it really happens.

[libodem]

33. She was an interesting person

She's passed over, now. He was sort or a religious nut. I saw him at her funeral. Strange duck.

[TreasonousBastard]

31. I know a few who would. One in particular who...

(just how graphic do we want to get here) I wasn't able to properly handle the job. She said very few guys could, and she just used the vibrator when she was alone. It wasn't the orgasm with the guy that was so important to her, it was the whole cuddly, sensuous thing and the missing orgasm was a problem, but not a big one.

Carry on.

[Major Nikon]

35. "I give her my heart but she wanted my soul"

-- Bob Dylan

[Warren DeMontague]

37. We were talking about Shelly Lubben, right? I mean, I know there was an LBN thread on her.

It would appoear she is not only another "prominent anti pornographer" who is unfairly "silenced" on DU because she also just totally coincidentally [font size=1]happens to be a right wing fundamentalist Christian[/font]... A big part of her "pink cross" spiel also centers on the "addictive properties of porn" due to the "dangerous brain chemicals" it allegedly produces.

Where does one suppose Ms. Lubben's organization is getting this groundbreaking, revolutionary, "science", hmmm?



Hmmm, I wonder!



http://www.drjudithreisman.com/porn_as_erototoxic.html

Yes, I know, it's, like, tooooooootally unfair




that a bigoted right wing homophobe like Reisman, she of completely rational hypotheses
Like her one where Teh Gays caused the Holocaust, can't have her important science promoted on DU.

Thus denying members here the latest cutting edge analyses of the chemical means through which naughty-thought-o-trons create sin-sotopes in the brain-acular faith pathways, blocking important jesus-o-transmitters... and flooding the mind with nasty, soul-destroying smutt-o-acids, dirty-thought reagents, and lust-olecules.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

38. There are numerous examples out there about Lubban using the women who went to her....

....making up phony success stories to pad her own public relations. And no, many of these women didn't go back to porn and "sell her out".

You'd think that would be "problematic" for people who claim to care about all women so much, and they'd at least like to look into that before carrying the banner for that person. Guess not.

[Major Nikon]

39. So here we are 16 people into this list and not a single one who isn't sex negative

[LadyHawkAZ]

40. How about the Government of Uganda?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/no-thighs-please-uganda-bans-miniskirts-as-mps-pass-antipornography-bill-9016686.html

Ugandan MPs have passed a controversial anti-pornography Bill that will ban miniskirts and other clothing deemed to be sexually explicit.

The Bill, widely opposed as a threat to women's rights, could also see many films and TV dramas being banned. Opponents claim it would stop performers such as Beyonce and Madonna appearing on their television channels.

According to the Daily Monitor the anti-pornography Bill outlaws anything that shows sexual parts of a person such as breasts, thighs, buttocks or any erotic behaviour intended to cause sexual excitement or any indecent act or behaviour tending to corrupt morals.

http://allafrica.com/stories/201304221138.html
The Bill defines pornography as "Any cultural practice, form of behavior or form of communication... or leisure activity... that depicts a person engaged in explicit sexual activities or conduct ... erotic behavior intended to cause sexual excitement or indecent act or behavior intended to corrupt morals".

These are the same folks that want the death penalty for gays. I feel that they deserve to be on the list in spite of the fact that it's a governing body and not an individual. They certainly qualify as prominent and anti-pornography as well as obviously sex-negative.

[nomorenomore08]

41. Homophobia, misognyny, the urge for censorship - they're all intertwined, really.

When it comes to freedom of speech, I agree with Friedan far more than Dworkin.

[Major Nikon]

42. Interesting observation

However, there are lots of foreign governments that ban pornography. This generally happens due to totalitarianism and hypermorality. Although these governments are an excellent example of where this mindset leads, the list would get pretty long if we were to include all of them even though they do make excellent examples.