Tucker posed this hypothetical: "What if there was a candidate who wanted to put the owners of Mindgeek [Pornhub's parent company] in prison? Would younger Americans support that?" Nick's answer was yes.
Almost everyone here has agreed at this point that age verification laws are meant to be an attack on the freedom of the internet, and that any effect on porn is beside the point. But for people who actually support the stated intent of the laws, it seems like legislating against the porn suppliers may be a way to effectively attack the industry without opening up another avenue of control.
What would this look like? In my opinion, fines and jail time for producers in the US and foreign websites that allow access to the US. As we've seen with social media in Europe, government pressure is enough to make companies change course.
The natural objection is that a VPN is really easy to use. That's true, but it's a barrier that would most likely severely curtail the usage of porn in pubescent children. The effect still might be substantial on adults as well. Also, it would effectively destroy the Onlyfans market since only a few determined women are going to jump through hoops to do illegal amateur porn for some company in Bulgaria.
Another objection I've seen is that women are the root cause of the breakdown of relationships, and that men need an outlet in porn to cope with that. The first part is obviously true but I don't think the second part follows. If massive numbers of young men are coping with the feminization of society through porn, that means it's a control mechanism to prevent them from getting angry enough to revolt. If we're going to make any progress against women's rights, men need to feel an acute sense of what they are missing.
There is also the possibility of knock-on effects on anime, movies, TV, etc. The only thing I really care about there is anime, but I think the collateral damage could be effectively controlled.
Ending porn is not a solution to the current problems. The fact anyone thinks this is an underlying issue (and especially a major one) speaks to just how disconnected people are from the real issues.
Men want hot women to worship their cock but women don't want to. That's it. That's the problem. Banning porn isn't going to make women worship men's cock nor will it force men into accepting not hot women that don't worship their cock. Banning porn won't solve shit.
Reducing taxes by 80% and cutting social programs on the other hand will have a much more significant impact on fixing the issues people think banning porn will fix.
I don't see banning porn as solving relationship/birthrate issues because you're right, it's not a major cause. But I do see banning it as a precursor to the actual solution of the problems you mentioned, because at the moment it's one of the most effective opiates of the masses.
The Onlyfans problem is actually doing severe damage to women just by itself, meaning damaging their capacity for relationships and motherhood. The estimate is 14% of American women 18-24 on the platform. That's 14% of young women that are automatically damaged goods. Any loss is unacceptable, let alone 14% because we let a subversive company rampage through our culture.
Disagree completely. Why? I am friends with pronstars and a porn producer. I am going to a private party with a bunch of pornstars for Halloween. I know the women in this industry. Most of them were already broken by 12-14yo, long before they were ever on OFs. It almost always stems from the mother too and a part of their nature. We've always had whores. They aren't going away. You ban all the outlets for whores and all you're doing is making them hide themselves but they're still there. You can't make a whore a housewife, it's not in their nature and no amount of banning outlets for whores is going to solve this. Also, this may blow your mind but I see far more children among OF girls than I do among educated women.
The real reason you see less mothers is because of taxes and government spending. Men want children more than women do. Women are the access to children but men ultimately provide the resources. That has always been the exchange and it always will be, that's our nature. To get more kids you need to significantly lower taxes and cut all social programs. Right now, men are being taxed more than women and women are benefiting from the taxes more than men so we're reducing men's natural advantage and giving it to women thus reducing women's need of men but this makes children less likely because it's men who want women to produce children in exchange for resources. If you reduce women's access to resources except in the case of them marrying a man and providing children for him then women will do exactly that (get married and have kids) so they get access to resources. If you want more kids this is how you get them:
If you do the above, you will see a far larger increase in birth rates than banning porn ever would.
Yeah, I'm surprised, but I could see that. A few thoughts:
Re: prostitution, legalized European prostitution makes for a good case study. Legalization increased demand, but the supply of natural whores was not enough, so organized crime forces a lot of women into the business and there aren't any better protections for them now. Legalization grows the cancer, bans reduce it.
I largely agree with those prescriptions, but my point is that men being able to (somewhat) satiate their need for women with porn is sapping the political will to make such drastic anti-female overhauls of the system.
Here's another issue to consider. If you ban your women from engaging in whoring/prostitution in the age of the digital world, you're reducing foreign capital flowing into your country and likely leading to the flow of capital to other countries.
Why not have White women be the greatest whores in the world and use this to extract as many resources from non-White simps worldwide? Get all the rich Chinese, Indians, Saudi guys to simp for White women on OF. The OF girls get the money domestically and then spend it here in the country, thus improving our total resources by extracting resources from non-White simps? Because if we ban our women from doing it, you can bet our men will still find a way to give money to Asian/jewish whores online and someone else will benefit from it.
Since whores always exist, we shouldn't be trying to have a 1:1 ratio of monogamy for all men and women with everyone having kids. That's not ideal. Many men and women shouldn't be having kids and maybe that's 15% of the population (what your estimate is at for these girls, which seems about right to me). The 80/20 general rule probably holds here.
Anyway, I think at the end of the day we have a lot of average men and women who are frustrated at their outcomes for the opposite sex and blame porn as the reason why they aren't getting what they want. I don't think porn is really the issue...
But you may be right about porn needing to be banned simply so the scapegoat can go away and people will be forced to realize the reason they don't have a hot man or woman chasing after them has nothing to do with porn.
The idea that if we didn't have porn, men would be forced to lower their expectations for women is absurd. We still have the internet. Men know what women are capable of and how they treat men they're into. Average guys are tired of being treated like shit by average women and want to be treated the same way these women treat hot men. Banning porn won't lead to men becoming horny desperate simps looking to marry a bitch just so he can have sex because he's so desperate. Guys will just use their imagination or grab a fashion magazine like they used to do. Guys aren't going to put up with women's shit anymore in the future just because porn is banned. That shipped sailed long ago and not because of porn but because dating apps and information exchange grew thanks to the internet. Men have observed the truth and aren't confined to their small town and unrealistic civialrous standards to shame men into doing his "duty" to support bitchy/ugly women. Banning porn won't change a thing.