Conservatives Must Champion Anti-Porn Industry Measures
Nobody has any idea what “conservatism” conserves anymore. It seems it is incapable of preserving traditional culture and values (which is supposed to be its primary purpose) even when there is a clear public need for these values.
Submitted by Emmanuel Spraguer
Worst of all, the conservative politicians aren’t proactive at all. It’s as if they all live in the 1980s with their understanding of modern-day social concerns and woes. They are incredibly out of touch.
Not to worry though, that’s what the Alt-Right exists for. We are the Think Tank that Gotham needs, if not perhaps the one it deserves.
Porn is an epidemic and a difficult topic to legislate away, especially when you consider the sexual market forces at play. But there are ways of fighting the porn industry, and mitigating the damage. If supposed conservatives want to do something genuinely useful, they should raise the age of consent for those (foolishly) wanting to enter the porn industry to 22 or 23. They might also seek to restrict the distribution of pornography involving actors and actresses under that age.
I’m just putting this great idea out there for free, no consulting fees like Heritage Foundation would charge…yet.
These are sensible and frankly realizable goals on the federal level. There is also a glaring public need for such legislation/reform. A bill of this nature might even get substantial bipartisan support. To see the seemingly endless supply of impressionable, vulnerable and horribly confused young women exposing themselves to the dangers of this extremely profitable but even more parasitic industry, is genuinely disturbing, even for the occasionally guilty pervert like me.
These young women are, by and large, not mature enough to be entering this industry, especially given its rather extreme demands today. Modern psychology will tell you that an 18-year-old person is not fully mentally developed or ready to make life-altering decisions, like entering porn (or joining the armed forces for that matter). And make no mistake about it, entering the porn industry is not like having sex with your high school boyfriend. It’s just not. It’s something else altogether. It is a life-altering choice, some might even say a life-destroying choice, not some minor error in judgment or just another aspect of “female liberation”, as some would have you believe.
Does anyone in their right mind really think a jobless and cash-strapped 18-year-old girl, studying for a bullshit degree with essentially zero life experience and no daddy in the picture is qualified to enter this deviant and exploitative industry teeming with illicit drugs, ruinous diseases and stacks of greenbacks so high they’re frankly coercive? Anyone? Bueller? Anyone? The regularity with which misguided and vulnerable young girls are being exploited by this industry in America is both a disgrace and a failure on the part of our government.
Now, this is the part where the Libertardians start kvetching about “muh consent”. Sorry, but the fact of the matter is that the state has a role to play in intervening when market forces are destructive to the well-being of the citizens. Like when young girls are bribed into porn. I don’t think any normal person has a problem with this concept, either. This idea would be very popular.
The implications of entering the porn industry are vast. There are physical health implications, mental health implications, life-long professional and employment implications, there are implications upon implications, most of them quite bad.
It should be noted that conservatives in Congress might be branded with trying to control women or police their sexual conduct or whatever, if they attempt to pass such legislation, but this would be a lot harder to do if Congress also raised the age for entering the armed forces to 20 or 21 at the same time, which they should do regardless by the way. Furthermore, there is a very potent and shrewd retort to this charge either way. Conservatives can argue that they are not waging a war on women, they are instead protecting children and the most vulnerable amongst us, which they are. It also turns Democrat talking points around on the Democrats themselves. After all, aren’t Democrats supposed to be champions of the poor and the vulnerable?
Our conservative leaders can’t seem to find anything to preserve and protect other than the exorbitant incomes of the wealthiest Americans. Not our borders, not essential choice in the marketplace, not freedom of association, nothing meaningful apart from as far as I can tell. In Ted Cruz’s case, and I’m afraid in the case of many other conservative politicians, the thing they most need to do something about has been staring them right in the face all this time, misguided and defenseless.
Seeing as most of our conservative politicians are not-so-secret homos and pedos though, it might be difficult to find much support among their ranks for such a straightforward and popular idea.