1. The majority of porn is not in CA
2. Notice how many of the claims of the trafficking are coming from angry ex-porn stars who all happen to be old and are no longer hired, almost as if, wait for it, they have a chip on their shoulder
>> 1. The majority of porn is not in CA <<
I actually dared ask Google if this were still true.
>> 2. Notice how many of the claims of the trafficking are coming from angry ex-porn stars who all happen to be old and are no longer hired, almost as if, wait for it, they have a chip on their shoulder <<
Huh, that’s odd. I’ve always heard about it from sheriffs and other LEOs talking about the rescues. What kind of a person imagines that sex trafficking is just disgruntled, aging porn stars?
The defense of pornography going back decades has been at least as intellectually deficient as any other leftist or mostly leftist theorization.
The deficiency is in the failure to recognize or discuss the costly effects of pornography on behavior, and in the assumption that pornography somehow profits the user:
1. Pornography becomes an addiction which, through the process of tolerance, leads to child pornography and beastiality. Ask anyone in law enforcement with experience in prosecuting these crimes.
2. The pornography industry runs on human trafficking: where money is moved in massive quantities, there is always management of it.
3. The use of pornography is devastating to relationships; what could otherwise have been a normal and fulfilling marriage becomes a dynamic of betrayal, antagonism and despair.
4. The fact that there are no social, psychological, emotional or physical benefits from the use of pornography explains why no proponent has ever articulated any.