My stance is clear, I'm inclined to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I have no attachment/addiction to porn; I care about the welfare of others more than fleeting pleasure. My stance emerged from my research rather than the desire to limit people for kicks, and it's not clouded in the way that the consumer or profiteer's self-serving reasoning is.
Non-exploitative pornography is rather like getting Communism to work (or in this case, unfettered capitalism), seems a pipe dream. I abhor violence in pornography because of the effect on performer and wider society, objectifying pornography for its effect on society, and "feminist" pornography for often being both those things, with a prettier label and a female profiteer. As backed by the peer-reviewed articles I cite in those sections (see the new table of contents to search more easily through the article).
The way hosting sites are structured to profit from non-age or consent verified content is sickening. Still, my recommendations run the gamut from regulation to outright bans. How society tackles the pornography industry is going to be complex; my recommendation section is a list of ideas.
Not evasion, ignoring irrelevance, rather. I'm pro free expression, sexual health, consent, pleasure (as long as it doesn't infringe on other people's rights and safety, it's not all me me me) but it turns out sex-positive is a label to describe the politics you agree with! It's like people who label themselves "pro-life" because it sounds admirable, and anyone disagreeing ends up sounding like an ""anti-life"" dirtbag. (Perhaps the junk food consumer could brand those who call out rapacious companies like Nestle, or aim to end the obesity epidemic, "anti-food"?)
No cool-girl feminism for me, thanks, where choices aren't affected by society and everyone is an atomised individual and everything they do (particularly if men find it arousing) is automatically "empowering". Not my way of reasoning through power structures, or evaluating prostitution or porn.
I'm not pro-prostitution knowing what I know, but there's no need to target the workers instead of the Johns. Like I said, legalisation leads to an increase in human trafficking. It's also often, very often, even in developed countries with legal prostitution, the result of dire economic straits and therefore not a choice in the true sense, however much you enjoy their work. In the U.S. most begin at age 13-14. These facts are from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X12001453 <- "On average, countries where prostitution is legal experience larger reported human trafficking inflows." https://www.prostitutionresearch.com/pdf/Prostitutionin9Countries.pdf <- "89% of these respondents wanted to escape prostitution, but did not have any other options for survival" "Our findings contradict common myths about prostitution: the assumption that street prostitution is the worst type of prostitution, that prostitution of men and boys is different from prostitution of women and girls, that most of those in prostitution freely consent to it, that most people are in prostitution because of drug addiction, that prostitution is qualitatively different from trafficking, and that legalizing or decriminalizing prostitution would decrease its harms". "47% were upset by attempts to make them do what others had seen in pornography and 49% reported pornography was made of them".
There’s also this from https://4w.pub/sex-work-is/ (A non-cool girl feminism site, I know you only like the ones who appeal to/appease men without critical thinking for woke brownie points.):
“Prostitution is Not a Normal Job
Activists who oppose the legalization of buying sex are constantly told to “listen to sex workers”, yet, it is clear that the loudest voices in the debate are only those privileged enough to feel they would benefit under legalization. The majority of people who experience prostitution disagree.
Among Canadian women studied, 76% reported receiving physical injuries from violence in prostitution. For comparison, the legal industry with the highest injury rate, according to Forbes, is Animal Agriculture — with an injury rate at just 6.6%. Prostitution is simply not comparable to other jobs on nearly any front.”
But clearly the authors don't care about sex workers the way you do...
And again, as regards your proclivities and/or your non-monogamy. I don't care. No one cares. You shouldn't care about "kink-shaming", other people don't need to validate you. You want to authorise someone to injure you, that's your business as someone acting freely on your terms. (I understand your objections to religious moralising or arbitrary obscenity laws... in modern porn-critical discourse a focus on ethics has replaced this.)
ANALOGY: I'm pro-employment, my employer is pro-profit, and my clients are pro-my services. If my employer keeps raising the ante until I have to work 100 hours a week, that's exploitation, that's setting an unfair expectation for other workers, that's me plastering on a smile, pretending to like what's going on to keep my job and not end up homeless. In fact, the position was advertised as only 50 hours a week, but I won't get paid unless I work all 100 hours.
However, if in my spare time I spend 100 hours a week working on some personal project, that's my prerogative, and a reflection of *my* desires. Maybe one of my colleagues is stoked with a 100 hour work week, maybe one works only 20 hours through sheer luck of the draw, both are trust fund kids or something, but that doesn't mean my industry isn't exploitative and in need of ethical oversight. Working an office job isn’t comparable to being coerced into sex, but you get the picture.
How would you tackle non-consent and child abuse without regulating or banning pornography? It's an industry (including secondary distributors) that happily profits from it and increases the risk of its perpetration. You seem rather like the gun owner who dearly wishes for a reduction in gun violence but is opposed to any gun regulation.
No, depriving you of pornography is not abuse, the things done to the "disgruntled" sex worker is abuse. Literally.
Forgive me, you sound exactly like this:
"Pretend that pornography content is dictated by women who love to be abused rather than men who love to watch women being abused. Defend your desire to consume objectifying content or non-simulated sexual violence and degradation under the guise of being a champion of women’s rights and freedom of speech." as preempted by my article.