GirlChat #727946

Start A New Topic!  Submit SRF  Thread Index  Date Index  

I can't agree.

Posted by Paedestrian on Sunday, January 13 2019 at 11:54:57PM
In reply to Tax for whose benefit? posted by kratt on Sunday, January 13 2019 at 03:06:07AM

> Pornography is harmful to the reputation of those depicted.

That is only true if you consider pornography bad. Would you say "Hollywood movies are harmful to the reputation of the actors"? Of course not!

>What I endorse is impounding significant parts of pornography proceeds for appreciable time.
This I agree with completely. Like any child active in movie production these days, their earnings should be almost exclusively set aside for their benefit after age 18. Any expenditures before that should be carefully monitored to be in the best interests of the child, not their guardian.

One last thing . . .
> You want to protect girls from becoming cheap whores.
Your use of the term "whore" here feels to me both anti-sex and rather disrespectful. Sex is a beautiful thing when engaged in by consenting parties. The term "whore" is to me a way for men to try to control females by shaming if they choose to participate in normal human activity.

-----------
Paedestrian





Follow ups:

Post a response :

Nickname Password
E-mail (optional)
Subject







Link URL (optional)
Link Title (optional)

Add your sigpic?