Reply to comment

multiple failures

This article does not examine pornography from a historical materialist perspective (when did it arise? why?), does not analyze the pornographic form (it's a type of commercial sex; since when do socialists champion commerce?), nor does it explain why pornography is worth actively defending, as if it had any redeeming or progressive qualities; instead of a rigorous argument making the positive case for pornography (I don't think it's possible to make such a case), we get a long, sterile rant against censorship and thinly disguised advocacy of laissez-faire policy that fits perfectly with the politics of libertarianism and not socialism. Very disappointing to say the least.

Reply

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <b> </b> <br> <br /> <a> </a> <em> </em> <strong> </strong> <cite> </cite> <code> </code> <ul> </ul> <ol> </ol> <li> </li> <dl> </dl> <dt> </dt> <dd> </dd> <div> </div> <img> <style> <font> </font> <blockquote> </blockquote> <hr>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.