Courtney Kirchoff - July 29, 2021 at 12:32PM
A liberal writer who, according to her Twitter bio where she's also specified her preferred gender pronouns, has penned articles for GQ and the like, suggested today we create porn for children. Those were her actual words. As you'd likely imagine in the internet cesspool that is Twitter, the tweet picked up some viral loads and spread like the delta variant. Flora Gill has since deleted the tweet, but that hardly solves the problem. People got a few screen captures, which are below. But the full wording of the tweet is this:
"Someone needs to create porn for children. Hear me out
Young teens are already watching porn but theyre finding hard core, aggressive videos that give a terrible view of sex. They need entry level porn! A soft core site where everyone asks for consent and no one gets choked etc"
https://t.co/md1J9TGq1s
— Siraj Hashmi (@SirajAHashmi) 1627573345.0
There's more problems with this than just saying "children" and then defining them as "young teens" then trying to say young teens means "under 18." Sometimes it's best to stop when you're ahead. There is such a thing as looking at the tweet drafted then deciding NOT to hit send. That's usually when I take my screen captures and text to coworkers. It's the digital equivalent of "I really shouldn't say this but wanted you to see what I would've said..."
The problem with pornography is that it's pornography. The problem with children of any age watching pornography is a problem because pornography is a problem. The issue I have with Flora's argument isn't about consent or how she defines children, my issue is trying to solve a problem by offering a diluted version of it. It's the "but they're going to do it anyway so let's try to make something bad less bad" principle.
Let's replace porn with something else to demonstrate:
Someone needs to create alcohol for children. Hear me out. Young teens are already binge drinking and severely damaging their livers, cognitive functions, and putting them at higher risk of drunk driving fatalities. They need entry level alcohol! A lighter buzz that gives them a safer feeling of drunken disorderly conduct!
Surely you can think of a few more examples that follow the formula. Like Oxycodone, cheating on tests, ditching class, bulling, murder, just about anything that people do anyway regardless of that thing being wrong.
We shouldn't have porn for children because we shouldn't encourage porn. For anyone. Porn is a problem because of what porn is. It serves no great purpose. I know a lot of folks get touchy (see what I did there) when porn is discussed in a negative light, but let's not pretend porn is a great boon like backup cameras.
So no, Flora. We shouldn't offer soft core pore to children, even porn that teaches consent. Teaching consent is good. Teaching consent in the avenue of porn, something bad, is not good. This should be a simple exercise but here we are.
Maybe instead we teach children that consent is good and sex can be good when there's respect for the human person, most often attained in the union of marriage, where each spouse has love for the other. That doesn't mean we need to introduce children to sex acts that are less disturbing than choking. It does mean we can encourage children to find a person who respects them and won't treat them like an object to be used for their own sexual gratification. Which I'm afraid porn, even soft core porn, just doesn't offer.
from Steven Crowder Says
