SALT LAKE CITY — The pornography industry has grown to a $97-billion business worldwide but the adverse affects of pornography are incalculable.
Thousands of families are crumbling under its destructive power. A couple we spoke to says it almost cost them everything.
“It was taking over my life and my life completely became unmanageable,” says a Utah man who wishes to remain anonymous.“I think women feel like they’re living life right and they’re doing what they’re supposed to be doing. They’re raising their children and they’re doing the best they can and then their husband goes and does something like this and it totally devastates their life.” -Anonymous Utah woman
He says pornography consumed him but his wife paid the greater price after she discovered her husband’s multiple affairs and life-long battle with pornography.
“I had a nervous breakdown and I tried to commit suicide,” says the wife. “I think women feel like they’re living life right and they’re doing what they’re supposed to be doing. They’re raising their children and they’re doing the best they can and then their husband goes and does something like this and it totally devastates their life.”
I’m not going to make any attempt at re-butting ‘porn is harmful’ arguments here. It’s enough to state here that husbands are not the sexual slaves of their wives. Isn’t is odd, as countries such as France and Mexico introduce laws criminilizing men who ‘control’ their wives, that the alleged fact that porn might lead to a husband spending less time with his wife is a reason to declare her a ‘victim’ and to call for porn to be restricted on that basis?
Of course, it may or may not be true that porn, or at least ‘porn addiction’, may upset the family unit or mean that Father may spend less time performing his parental duties. Just as any ‘addiction’, such as alcohol addiction, may have the same consequence. But when it is a feminist (or even a female Christian anti-feminist) making the argument that porn leads to men spending less attention on women, or upon real relationships with women, then it’s not an argument against porn. It’s the rape of the male.
Here’s a great video of somebody calling out feminist bullshit arguments on porn:
Great comment made underneath by ‘YoureBuying’ :
Feminism is not about equality so much as it is sexual control.
Women don’t like porn because it gives? men “options”.
They’re not anti sexuality, but rather anti sexuality on anything but THEIR terms, and for THEIR asking price.
Feminists HATE the idea of men being able to get their rocks off without having to grovel and scrape for approval. It drives the price of pussy DOWN, and they HATE that.
Child Porn Hysteria – Spot the Difference :
“Because the websites — with names like “Excited Angels” and “Boys Say Go” — went offline in January, the number of active commercial child porn sites has nose-dived from perhaps 300 to the single digits, said Matt Dunn, of the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Custom’s Enforcement (ICE), which was the lead law enforcement agency. (WorldWide sting targets child porn)”
“Maalla urged international cooperation to stop the child pornography industry, which she estimated to be worth between $3 billion and $20 billion. She recommended countries share information on sites containing child pornography in order to block them faster. (UN Expert : Child porn increasing)“
Of course, sexual trade union leaders such as Najat M’jid Maalla, need to propagate blantantly grotesque lies about the scale of child pornography in order to shame governments into passing ever more draconian laws that criminilize the majority of the male population. The EU is shortly to introduce another directive on harmonizing child abuse and child pornography laws across the continent, less than 7 years since the previous one. Stand out elements of the new directive include making it a criminal offence in each member state to simply view child pornography without downloading it. Keep in mind that in the EU child porn is defined as any sexual image, real or virtual, of a ‘child’ who even looks under 18. So when this directive is ratified, you will have committed a child porn offence if you are simply performing a google image search for ‘sexy bikini’ and one of thumbnail image results that appear on your screen happens to be of a person judged to merely look under 18. This could be a cartoon picture. You don’t have to even click on the image, let alone ‘download’ it (i.e. save it). Basically, from that point on, you will have to fear the 4 am boots through the door for the rest of your life. You would then face a mandatory minimum 6 months of beatings and ass rape.
Another aspect of the new directive is that the ‘online grooming of a child’ will be made illegal across the EU. ‘Grooming’ originally meant, and is still popularly meant and understood as, 40 year old men posing online as young boys to befriend 12 year old girls in order to meet and assault them offline. However, it appears that the feminist sexual trade union lobby groups posing as child protection groups who are behind the new directive want to actually criminalize the ‘soliciting a minor for sex via the internet’. This could mean similar laws to America, where it is illegal to meet a 17 year old offline after meeting her online, regardless of the age of consent. Just like absurd ‘virtual child pornography’ laws, such new legislation, if vaguely defined, could be used as a back door means by feminists to bring in a uniform age of consent at 18. If I chat up a 17 year old in the street or a nightclub, swap MSN addresses, and we get to know each other largely via online chat before meeting up and evenutally having a sexual relationship, could that count as ‘grooming’? Who knows, as it’s impossible to locate the specifics of this new draft anywhere online.
Also note that it could potentially criminilize talking to a 17 year old online, if you later have sex with her, even if you first have sex with her after she has turned 18.
One thing for sure is that with the signing of the Treaty of Lisbon last year, the sexual trade union now has free reign across Europe to finally achieve its 150 year old mission of putting all young females out of bounds for men. In the words of the EU website itself :
Additionally, the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty (on 1 December 2009) provides considerable advantages for new legislation to be adopted in the field of Justice and Home affairs from now on. This also justifies the proposal for a new Directive.
Legislation will no longer need to be approved unanimously by the EU Council of Ministers (i.e. national governments). Instead, it will be adopted by a majority of Member States at the Council, together with the European Parliament. A single country will not be able to block a proposal
As technology speeds up, we can expect many more directives. But don’t compare the steady drip drip of legislation leading to a final solution for the ordinary white European male and his sexuality to the tragic fate of the French Romas, forced to return to their EU countries of origin after countless thievings, assaults, and other crimes. However, deportation of Roma can be righteously compared to the Nazi holocaust by those same liberal minded fucked up sexual trade union fascists.