Thursday, January 25, 2024

A Ban On P0rn?


 An Oklahoma state senator has proposed a law that would make watching pornography a felony and ban sexting among people who are not married.

The bill, set to be introduced next month by state Sen. Dusty Deevers (R-Elgin), would prohibit consuming or producing sexual content that “lacks serious literary, artistic, educational, political, or scientific purposes or value” in any medium.

The measure defines “obscene material” as the depiction or description of any “acts of sexual intercourse,” including those that are “normal or perverted, actual or simulated.”



  1. It probably could still have been done as late as the 70s/80s, but that particular genie is out of the bottle now.

    1) How is this even enforceable. Unless the gov. inspects every shipment of magazines and dvds to enter the state, porn will get in. Also unless they clamp down on the internet as in force all the citizens to use state sponsored internet in which all but a few sites are locked away. I mean its quite ludicrous. Would they expect people to tell on themselves? Its like those old anti-piracy ads. Its almost impossible to enforce.

    2) Besides the blatant stripping away of freedom of speech, how would the government ban sexting among people who are not married. First those phone companies are privately owned, not owned by the government. Also I highly doubt any government would be willing to pony up the cash to pay people to monitor and or enforce any part of this. Plus how would they even distinguish between married and not married. That is not even considering common law marriages. What about those? They live together but aren't technically married, so do they count?

    3) Even if by some strange chance it did pass, why would anyone think our government would be willing to enforce it? I mean really, he thinks the government which is perfectly ok with those abominations who into schools with little children to teach them .... well you get the idea. So yea does he really think that government would be willing to enforce banning porn and sexting.

    4) So no, I think he is wasting people's time trying to score political points to get reelected. He doesn't expect it to pass, I doubt he cares if it will pass. He is simply another crook who should be tossed out.

    5) The thing is porn isn't good. For the girls it destroys her value when she takes part in it (only fans is included in this.) Decent guys don't want to touch one of those girls with a 10 foot stick. For the guys it degrades his drive to find a wife. Guys need sex just like girls need attention. In a marriage if a wife refuses sex her husband will very likely if begrudgingly go to get it elsewhere. In a marriage if a husband doesn't pay attention to his wife, she will very likely latch onto another guy who will pay attention to her. So for guys what porn does is trick the brain into thinking that his need for sex has already been sated. If it has been sated he doesn't have that hormone driven drive to go out an find a girl to marry.

    I do think we have gone too far, but there is no real way to put the genie back in the bottle as it were. I believe in the Millennial Kingdom after the Great Tribulation I suspect all that will be destroyed and banned, but there is almost no chance of that happening anytime before then.
    - W

  2. What an idiot!!! The poster above pretty much covered it. Probably another Christian 'cuckservative' that instead of finding out why men are not marrying and such, wants to pass an asinine law that is in effect unenforceable. And shouldn't prisons be filled with people with felonies for rape, assault, murder, theft and whatnot?

    I would be perfectly okay with a pleasant FWB situation. Intimate company with a pleasant and attractive woman is far better to me than a boring sermon.

  3. I, too, thought the motivation behind this kind of idea is a political one. He sounds desperate for new voters.

    The Finnish version would be just another tax. Think about taxing everyone let's say over 16 year old ''just in case''. This idea is not far-fetched as we already have an Yle tax ( Yle – the Finnish Broadcasting Company is Finland's national public service media company. Yle operates under the Act on Yleisradio Oy) you cannot get rid of even if you never listened to radio or watched Yle channels on TV or even if you didn't have a TV set.

  4. W., they criminalised child pornography, didn't they? So the enforcement mechanism would probably be similar? S8xting is another thing, of course.

    Your 5th point, I agree, but not with the general attitude of "why polishing the brass on a sinking ship":)

    1. The Fed and various state governments did criminalize child pornography, but in effect they simply wrote it into law. It is not being enforced nor do any of those governments have any real way to enforce said law. In the very few cases you read about people arrested for child porn it is generally because it was found on their computer or in their house when they were being arrested for something else. So really my point is there is no method of enforcement nor can there be one. In this case you only see it added onto the original crime, you will never find it by itself. (Maybe, and this is a rather extreme maybe if someone was caught selling it, but you wouldn't see any actual enforcement short of that.)

      Going back to the proposed law in question, even if it was passed for some wide-eyed reason. I fully expect that any time a prosecutor raised it in court, that charge would be laughed out by the judge and the jury. With the exception of course for those who the judge and jury really wanted to throw the book at, but even then. It wouldn't be because of the law in question, but rather simply because it gave the ability to hammer the criminal that much more.

      On your 2nd point, I actually had to look up what that saying meant as I had never run across it before. The thing is I have that general attitude for a reason. There is no point in beating your head against a wall. Would I prefer porn wiped out. Sure, it would be nice, but it is highly prevalent for a reason, and the thing is porn is not the root of the problem, it is one of the symptoms. There are several roots to this problem. The biggest of course being the absolutely massive collapse of male/female relations and of marriage. The other roots feed into this, those being the economy, modern philosophies, general fear for the future, the destruction of education, the destruction of tribes/nation states, and the removal of God. Until and unless those are addressed porn will continue to be widespread. Likewise one of the other symptoms that come from this is the major levels of depression and apathy that are plaguing our civilization.
      - W

    2. Yeah, but you have to start somewhere:) But, if they really wanted to wipe p0rn out, they would go after internet providers, not consumers. So may be we should ask ourselves why they aren't doing it? Who is really behind this industry?

    3. Who is really behind that industry? It's (((them))).

  5. Texan, well, he also introduced a law about reforming no-fault divorce.

  6. Miriam, I thought the UK has the same with the BBC.

  7. Some things to consider:

    Probably the real reason why it is allowed.