Pornography is real. It is not fantasy.

This point never seems to drive home to the pro-porn crowd: pornography is very, very real.

The ease with which pro-pornography people describe porn as ‘fantasy’ shows very clearly that they don’t see the women in it being gagged/slapped/painfully penetrated as human. They talk like porn is a sexual image inside their head, instead of being basically filmed prostitution. So when a feminist says ‘I hate porn, porn is rape, porn is misogynistic’ they think she’s accusing them of a thought crime. Because the women they’re watching being abused aren’t even real to them.

Newsflash, ‘sex-positive’ people: dudes’ ugly little fantasies that get them hard don’t matter. The living, breathing women who are in front of the camera do.

19 thoughts on “Pornography is real. It is not fantasy.

  1. JR July 14, 2013 at 23:59

    And yet…forced abortion?

  2. JR July 15, 2013 at 00:23

    I don’t get opposing porn but favoring forced abortion. I get that it’s ethically optimal to force abortions. But it just doesn’t strike me as very humane. “The ease with which forced-abortion people describe it as “ethically optimal” shows very clearly that they don’t they don’t see the women in it being chloroformed, etc., as being human”.

    • Francois Tremblay July 15, 2013 at 00:31

      I never said I was in favor of forced abortions. I support the position that procreation is not ethically acceptable and that procreation is always worse than abortion. What form that would take in an ideal society, I never discussed. In practice I would support a voucher system with limited places available for new children, but that’s a whole other subject. Frankly, I don’t think it’s appropriate for you to bring this up on an entry which is about women being abused for men’s entertainment. Abortion is not an entertainment issue.

  3. Ayat Atan July 15, 2013 at 16:48

    While I agree with your arguments against the production and consequent consumption of pornography, I cannot help but retain the sinking feeling that anti-pornography efforts will produce little to no effective outcome. I fully support such efforts; however, once we analyze the societal context surrounding these efforts, they seem in vain…We reside in a predominantly post-modernistic society that is perpetually expanding its technological capacity. In addition, even contemporary, mainstream feminism (third-wave) feminism is criticized as being “too radical” (the irony). I don’t mean to discourage you from publishing these posts. Again, I fully support such endeavors. It’s just that feminists (not “funfems”, as you so describe them) are engaging in a losing battle.

    • Francois Tremblay July 16, 2013 at 00:00

      Yea… if you know me though, you know I don’t care.

  4. Ayat Atan July 15, 2013 at 16:53

    Oh, and, you might consider removing “Childfree Guy” from your blogroll concerning anti-natalism. The man claims to be an anti-natalist; however, he supports the “pro-choice” position and actively condemns those who retain an “anti-choice” position. I don’t believe that he fully comprehends the premises of anti-natalism since the rejection of “reproductive choice” is a corollary that originates from anti-natalistic philosophy.

  5. Ayat Atan July 16, 2013 at 10:46

    I don’t believe so. Read his comments belittling the “anti-choicers” (a.k.a. anti-natalists) at

    Here’s a direct quote from him in his response to a comment… “I’m not the one being hypocritical because I’m not the one that holds a contradictory viewpoint. ;-) The fact of the matter remains that it’s logically inconsistent to be childfree and yet anti-choice. If you can’t see that then perhaps you should take a class in logic. It would do you some good.”

    In actuality, identifying as a “child-free” adult and as an “anti-choice” advocate is not contradictory. The only contradiction here is his simultaneous support of “reproductive freedom” (which can be readily dismissed under the scrutiny of anti-natalism) and “anti-natalism”. He is not an anti-natalist, even though he claims to be an anti-natalist. All anti-natalists are “anti-choice” since the “anti-choice” position is an imperative corollary that originates from anti-natalistic philosophy. Similarly, anti-natalists cannot be “anti-extinctionists” since sentient extinction is the rationally-deduced consequence of embracing anti-natalistic philosophy. All anti-natalists are anti-choice, just as all anarchists are feminists (well, they SHOULD be, since feminism opposes gender-related hierarchies).

    • Francois Tremblay July 16, 2013 at 14:43

      I think you’re splitting hairs. He’s talking about anti-abortion anti-choice. On his entry about my stuff, he was talking about pro-abortion anti-choice. I don’t know why you’re making a big fuss about this. If you’re so sure, why don’t you ask him?

  6. Ayat Atan July 16, 2013 at 17:16

    Again, I don’t believe so. You employ a variety of vague terms and your comments are not even coherent, let alone comprehensible. Could you be a bit more specific about “my stuff”? Additionally, I did mention this to him in the comments section; however, I have yet to hear a response. I am “making a big fuss” over this because readers can be mislead by the inaccurate information that he espouses. Again, I repeat, ALL anti-natalists are “anti-choice” by default, just as ALL anarchists are feminists (in pure theoretical terms). It is not rational to advocate “pro-choice” positions as an anti-natalist, since “reproductive choice” does NOT exist in any meaningful sense. If he is referring to “pro-birth” conservatives with the term “anti-choice”, then fine. However, in that scenario, he is employing an inaccurate term to describe the conservatives. He is also abusing the language by brazenly applying inappropriate terms in his speech. The fact that you don’t realize this is quite disturbing, considering that you identify as an “anti-natalist” as well.

  7. Ayat Atan July 16, 2013 at 20:11

    Wow…How about you actually refute my points, instead of shoving a link under my nose and proclaiming, “See, see!”. I am not forcing you to remove his link off your blogroll since I only presented a suggestion. Well, whatever, if you insist on misleading your audience by presenting inaccurate information, that’s your prerogative, I suppose. Oh, and, I see that you have a propensity for censorship. Have fun deleting dissenting comments. :)

    • Francois Tremblay July 16, 2013 at 20:24

      Yea yea, that’s hilarious. Thanks for wasting my time.

  8. Nekocite July 22, 2013 at 23:50

    You’re right…Pornography is not a fantasy. It is a very real type of film and expression that depicts fantastical or realistic scenarios. That is precisely why I support it! It is an art form.

    If more actors/actresses signed up for the legitimate love of the craft and not the money and more directors/film crews got their priorities and morals straight, the industry would see a significant boom and just maybe could be taken more seriously.

    And don’t delude yourself…we all watch porn in some form or another. For some its the competition of sports being flagrantly splattered all over network cable. For some its action movies and violence…for other they just straight up turn hot moments in innocent media into secret sexual explosions. (like when the cute but gangly french girl in waterlilies sits awkward like trying not to bite her lip out of nervousness as she makes friends with the synchronized swimmer.

    Pro Porn, Pro Plastic Surgery / Body Modification, Pro Drug (all with self apposed responsible limits not held accountable by others), Pro Self Actualization, Liberal Radical Transhumanist speaking.

  9. Nekocite July 26, 2013 at 23:11

    Funny thing about biases Francois, they don’t change, now matter how much propaganda you throw around to persuade others. I have met a few people in my home town of Miami that work in the industry. They are all wonderful, responsible and healthy people who I have a great deal of respect for.

    In addition, the markets and demographics in the pornography industry are alittle deeper and spread out than you think. It is a misconception that 90% of all porn is is hardcore and abusive and directed at skeezy, A typical, working class, guy’s guys, male specimens (remember that gay porn and animation exist) or that some actors and actresses don’t legitimately like rough sex and being humiliated. Sometimes in a safe environment it’s cathartic to have the crap beat out of you or be made fun of. It gives one a sense of power over something that would normally be crushing and demoralizing.

    And that article is a pretty inaccurate description of liberals. For one, I am very pro big business and see homogeny as beneficial. Sooo. maybe you should take the time to get to know a few more liberal or people in the pornography industry. You know, step outside your comfort zone. However you won’t, because biases don’t change, Yours or mine.

    • Francois Tremblay July 27, 2013 at 00:11

      I told you to go away. Now you’re banned. Good job, porn-hound.

  10. JJ August 2, 2013 at 11:28

    This is great. Thanks for posting it, Francois.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: