The right has always opposed pornography. This opposition is healthy and good—but that does not change that on some level, no matter the circumstances, there will always be porn, to one degree or another. If an allowance is to be given to man because of his immutably fallen nature (and at this point, popular opinion), then the question becomes: What kind of porn should be banned? Not just in the future, either, but here and now, with Jeff Sessions as attorney general, millions of politicized Christians at the ready, and millions more unwilling to defend the worst of the worst in an industry viewed with great suspicion.
So let us start with the banning of the worst, which will serve as a warning to the industry as a whole, and go from there.
(1) The company Facial Abuse
Like plenty of other teenage boys, I discovered Facial Abuse because clips from their movies often made it to the “shock video” site eFukt. eFukt curates the most disgusting and outrageous porn on the internet, largely so that teens can get high and watch in enraptured horror with their buddies. In 2011, eFukt started a series called “Trolling Wannabe Pornstars,” which were clips that showed the most degrading and demeaning moments caught on camera at Facial Abuse. One cameraman, in particular, excels at insulting every girl put in front of him. As eFukt describes him, “Every ratchet skank that waddles off the New Jersey greyhound with hopes of porn stardom is sent to meet the grand wizard of trash talk. Many leave with their dreams, orifices and self-esteem shattered,” and “He’s the Simon Cowell of pornography and the slut shaming master of trash talk is back with another saga unleashing more of his verbal jihad against a new slew of aspiring cum dumpsters.”
The girls featured on Facial Abuse are invariably left in a terrible state by the end of each session—that’s the point. Girls often express regret at having agreed to perform while on camera; some even ask the men why it is that they are being so mean. By the end, most girls have completely dropped whatever fake smile they started with; not a few cry. The website for Facial Abuse proudly shows this in their promotional material—just go to their homepage and you can see several different photos of girls covered in cum and on the verge of tears.
The 1973 Supreme Court decision in Miller v. California set down these guidelines for determining whether something constitutes as “obscene” (in the criminal sense):
The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
When women are involuntarily brought to obvious emotional distress and even tears through verbal abuse and rough physical handling, it is patently offensive. Facial Abuse can and should be brought to trial and shut down.
Around 46 percent of American marriages end in divorce. Around the same percent of births are out of wedlock. Families in this country are not doing so great. Given that strong families are the bedrock of civilization, and the best environment for children, we should lend them a helping hand. Pornography that depicts spousal infidelity should be illegal. The specifics as to how the infidelity comes about (babysitters, in-laws, secretaries, etc.) are immaterial. We need healthier depictions of married couples and families. Pornography should be allowed to portray (nearly) any profession or social class in its scenarios, so long as all the participants are single or married to each other. Legislation needs to be drawn up to put this into law.