>aren't you assuming that kendall doesn't like porn as much
>as you do?
Aren't you assuming I like porn? I haven't consumed very much of it in my life. Most of it is terrible, though I have a weakness for Pat Califia. Actually I don't like saying that, since it seems wimpily liberal (or like Laura Kipnis, who told me she doesn't like porn except to the extent that it "fucks things up").
> your quote above seems to remove the context he
>attempts to establish: that porn "if the reports are to be
>believed" contributes to rape, etc. and i am guessing like
>kendall you are not for that.
Just for the record, I'm against rape.
> so, are you saying that porn
>does not contribute to rape, or that even if it does, the
>causation can be removed while keeping the porn?
I doubt very much that porn contributes to rape. As Dennis pointed out, very little of it is violent, and I don't know why antiporn people think so much of it is, unless on some level think they that all sex is violent. It probably contributes to the objectification of women (though it's hard to say which really causes which), but less so than Calvin Klein ads. Should we ban those too?
Doug