To whoever whines about “being censored” by me – please read here

Ten reasons why I explicitly refuse to hear “the other side” of the porn/prostitution debate:

1) Before creating my website Against Pornography (which I had created before this blog), I had compiled many informations I had researched. The research I'd made on pornography and prostitution led me to the conclusion that pornography and prostitution are undeniably harmful and indefensible IMHO because, simply put, the level of harms done to women and children is way too high! Which was my motivation for creating an anti-porn site in the first place. And I've compiled the informations I had researched which led me to that conclusion here and there. My anti-pornstitution stance is based on thorough research, not mere guesses. I became an anti-pornstitution feminist due to my research and findings on the harms and there is no going back!

2) You are renouncing your humanity and empathy by refusing to acknowledge the FACTS that human beings are harmed in porn/prostitution and by pornography. This is atrocious and sickening! And this is one of the major reasons why I refuse to hear you. As a fellow anti-porn blogger recently told me: “Pro-porners have labeled themselves "sex positive" in a deliberate conflation of sex with pornography. It allows them to dismiss those who criticize pornography as "sexually repressed." I, on the other hand, see the pro-porn crowd as ethically repressed, morally bankrupt, self-serving perverts that don't give a shit who gets hurt as long as they get their masturbatory material.”

3) You wouldn't go to a pro-abortion site and expect to hear the “other side”. These people are presenting their side! Good debaters take the arguments of their opponents and respond to them, which is exactly what I have done on my website and my blog. The FAQ's section of my site gives answers to major pro-porn questions and arguments. This is what free speech is about: the right to take a side! There are many pro-porn websites which do not allow us to be heard. I know that there are also “sides of the debate” sites where somebody who is undecided can find both sides going at it. However, this isn't the case here: I have fully recognized the harms of pornography and prostitution.

4) There are many MORE sites on the Net which defend pornstitution (and so does the mainstream media and culture) so, personally, I do not see anything wrong in having exclusively anti-porn/prostitution sites which fight back and give safe spaces to those who are/have been harmed and to those who understand, recognize or are interested in finding out about the harms (without having to hear the old tired "pornography's harmless, etc." arguments we hear in everyday life).

5) As One Angry Girl brilliantly put it in her website's FAQ: “the “other side of the argument” is sufficiently presented by the bazillion porn sites already on the Internet, which currently outnumber the antiporn sites by about 300 million to one. Since the pornographers don’t feel compelled to present any antiporn arguments among their streaming videos of nasty teen sluts, we aren’t compelled to parrot their nonsense here. But in the spirit of fairness, we’ll offer a compromise: when every porn site on the Internet includes a chapter or two of Andrea Dworkin’s work, then we'll include some Wendy McElroy here. Sound fair?”

6) Pro-porners and "sex work" advocates have money, corporate media, lobbyists, lawyers, managers, marketeers, industry analysts, paid writers of “opinion” and “journalism”, publicists, etc. to defend their fallacious arguments supporting misogynistic industries.

7) The pro-pornstitution side gets to be heard all the time in the world of pornified media. The pro-pornstitution side is what's mainstream, not us. My job is to give a voice to people who aren't heard as often. Radical feminist opponents are censored and repeatedly slandered by pro-porners and most of mainstream media in order to protect the pornography industry.

8) In a male-supremacist, capitalist society, the First Amendment protects only those who can exercise the rights it protects. My website and my blog aren't arguing whether pornography should be protected by the First Amendment or not. The facts that my website and blog show is how pornography keeps women and other people who have been harmed from exercising their rights to free speech. And I'm sick of pro-pornstitution folks acting like their speech is being suppressed during one of the few times we get to be heard!

9) You are making up excuses of “being censored” (while you can have your free speech in more places than us) because you are scared and worried that if people find and read my anti-pornstitution web pages on the Internet and these are not countered with glowing reviews of the 'sex' industry, some people might start seeing pornography and prostitution for the detriments these industries are to women and children!

10) As rad fem blogger Captain Vanille recently wrote in her post Language, Definition and Privilege:
” "Pro-free speech" and "anti-censorship" are also misnomers; the vast majority, if not all, of anti-pornography feminists do not advocate censorship as a solution to pornography, but instead education with a goal towards a society-wide boycott of pornography and prostitution. It would appear, then, that the propaganda aimed towards silencing anti-pornography feminists is designed to be against the education of people about pornography; this is perhaps so, but a far more striking implication of this is that pro-pornography people do not want to know the truth about anti-pornography feminists; they simply want to hate us, as has been the historical privilege of the ruling classes. That is the point of all of this. Pro-pornography people are not making these terms and beliefs up to propagandise others against us; they are making these things up for themselves so that they can dismiss us.”