Questions Expose Bad Thinking By Would Be Censors

Unfortunately, a lot of people spread the claims of crusaders who want to censor adult media or donate to them without asking some very basic questions about what they've said, what they're doing, and how they're doing it.

If they say or write a bunch of words without actually answering the question, then they haven't answered the question.

It's good to get them on record either through social media, email, text, audio, or video recording. It is good to think critically about what they say.

When they say "Porn is [something they consider negative]." it is almost always unreasonable. The there is a very plentiful, wide variety of porn. For example, if they say "Porn is misogynist," consider how it could possibly be misogynist for, example, a video produced by women with female performers in which nobody is hurt, disrespected, or portrayed as in a negative or dismissive way.

A common assertion is "Porn is rape." To that, I have responded:

A woman decides to masturbate and record it. She then sells the video. Either:
1) That is rape

2) That isn't porn
3) Your assertion isn't correct

Almost all of their assertions like that can be exposed with similar examinations or some simple questions like:

What is gay porn? ("Porn objectifies women!" What is gay porn?)

What is dominatrix porn? ("Porn is about women being abused by men." What is dominatrix porn?)

You've seen all porn?

Sometimes they will try to use numbers or supposedly scientific claims to impose what is a personal moral issue for themselves onto others. An example of that is when they say something like "79 percent of porn contains acts of aggression toward women." Really? 79 percent of which porn? They haven't watched all of it. Gay porn certainly doesn't have that. The inconvenient truth is that women like "aggressive" or "violent" or BDSM porn more than men. Also, one must know what they are counting as "aggression." A light slap on the butt? If these are people who have claimed that watching porn causes brain damage, how can they trust the claims of the people who watched all of that porn? And by their own claim, 21 percent of porn has no aggression in it. So that porn is OK, right? (Spoiler: they will still say it isn't.)

It's also important to remember that apparent correlation isn't causation, and to see if there are studies that contradict the studies to which the crusaders appeal.

Another good question to ask is why they hold adult media and adult media outlets to standards they don't apply anywhere else. An example of that is when the crusaders cite that someone uploaded illegal material to a porn site as to why a porn site must be shut down, while the crusaders are using a social media service with exponentially more illegal uploads. Or "She wouldn't do that if she wasn't being paid to do it!" That also describes most other work women do for money. "Some performers get injured." And how is that different than pro wrestling, football, or movies with stunts? If they claim that their goal is fighting rape, assault, child molestation, etc., but never apply the standards the apply to adult media to, for example, churches, then it smacks of "We want church ladies to give us money to censor porn."

I could go on. The bottom line, no pun intended, is... think. Pay attention. Follow the money.