[femming]

I think it's odd to draw a distinction between "genuine reasons" and "due to an agenda".

I'm anti-porn primarily because of the harm to women and girls. The pornography industry is built upon misogyny and abuse. There is a huge predatory aspect to it, with many of the performers being trafficked or otherwise coerced. It encourages its consumers to view women as subhuman sex objects to be degraded, abused and tortured.

Perhaps this could be considered a feminist agenda, but I consider these to be genuine concerns.

[0dayz]

It's not odd because the fundamental issue with having an agenda is precisely that you will never buckle because your goal is not to try and fix the cause for concern but instead to push and push until you get what you want.

To give you an example:

Let's say you want to ban or put up several restriction in the road where you live because of playing kids or elderly people.

In this case you're not against the idea of cars existing and you main focus is to see a resolution that suits the concern at hand, no cars on the road or at the very least a compromise (speed limits, roadblocks, etc.) to that specific road.

A person with an agenda to say ban all cars will completely agree with your concern, however they will further push and push and demand the total ban and even push for banning associations with cars (if we take it to a more fanatical degree), because it might "entice" people to build their own cars.

And in both cases there might be studies and data that support both of your claims (traffic accident statistics, studies conducted by your department of transportation, news papers documenting murder/death/injury caused by cars, etc.) but even then it does not make the anti-car arguments untouchable.

With specifically using anti-porn from an agenda perspective, they do not want to stop at real issues with porn, they want it banned and criminalized - no matter if there are nuances.

---

I do agree that there probably are cases as you state of trafficking victims casting as porn stars. In fact in Russia it's far, far worse than that.

But I would also argue at the same time that even then, the fundamental issue isn't the foundation of porn, but instead the lack of society acceptance and subpar treatment and scrutiny of the industry.

Instead I would argue that what you seek is a similar push towards is what the Labor movement did for blue collar workers which is no exploitation, no coercion and full rights to unionization and labor rights enshrined in law.

Plus ending the stigma about "sex", not to the point where you can show up naked at a funeral, but at least we should treat porn actors/actresses and prostitutes with the same respect and dignity as the common worker ought to be.

If the Romans/Greeks/Egyptians and more could marvel at the natural state of man and woman, I think we can also do this without casting judgement as if these statues were a symbol of sin and degeneracy.

And I do agree with you there's a very unhealthy narrative within porn about how we ought to look at men and women and how we ought to be "judged" based on sexual characteristic (which sometimes is beyond our control), but I think it's a lost cause to throw in the towel and go scorched earth (not trying to make the claim that you are, just that it's all too common for anti-'anything' to move in that zealous direction).

One argument I've heard is say for instance that the meta story of porn movies have all but disappeared (the cheesy acting and cheesy plot) and instead shifted to hyper-accelerate instead onto the "act" or "object" and as such we've moved away from seeing the experience/plot as erotic to only merely the "perfect" sexual attributes.