All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 10, 2023 - Whatever Podcast
03:08:03
Destiny, Jazmen Jafar VS Lila Rose, Trent Horn DEBATE | Whatever Podcast #10

Whatever Podcast is LIVE on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠youtube.com/whatever

|

Time Text
Welcome to a special debate edition of the Whatever podcast.
I'm your host and moderator, Brian Atlas.
A few quick announcements before the show begins.
This podcast is for your support in heavy YouTube demonetization, so please consider donating through Streamlabs instead of Soup Chatting as YouTube takes a brutal 30% cut.
Some quick maps for y'all.
So if you super chat 100, YouTube takes 30.
If you donate 100, Streamlabs only takes 30streamlabs.com slash whatever.
Link is in the description.
For the sake of a smooth stream and debate, we have boosted the TTS triggers.
Donations and Super Chats, $10 and up, will be displayed in Stream Overlay.
Donations and Super Chats, $50 and up will be read answered.
If you want to interact nearly instantly with us and weigh in on the debate, consider sending a TTS, text-to-speech message.
$300 and up triggers TTS.
TTS is via Streamlabs only.
Please see the description for all triggers and full details.
If the TTS is too disruptive, we might shift them to an interval where we just go through all the TTS because if it's just too disruptive for the debate, we don't want it to be ruining the quality of the show and debate.
Oh, guys, any super chats and TTS need to be on topic, please.
Destiny is not going to address any private relationship details.
You can still dunk on Jasmine and Lila if you want.
Not Trent, though.
He is a bit sensitive.
That's true.
Without further ado, I'm joined today by Destiny, famous internet personality, live streamer, and political commentator.
Joining him is Jasmine Jafar, the self-described ho lawyer.
She does porn and only fans.
We have Lila Rose.
She's the founder and president of the pro-life organization Live Action and Trent Horn.
Trent earned master's degrees in the fields of theology, philosophy, and bioethics.
Trent is an adjunct professor of apologetics at Holy Apostles College, and he is the author of nine books.
Welcome, everybody.
Thank you, Brian.
So we originally planned to have a proper debate moderator who was going to join us.
Unfortunately, there was an emergency and they couldn't make it.
So this is going to be a very laissez-faire when it comes to the moderation.
For the most part, I'm just going to let you guys talk.
The topic of today's debate, is sex work bad for society?
And I think a good jumping off point, if you can each one by one summarize your position on this topic, starting with Destiny and then Jasmine and then Lila and then Trent, also we ought to define for each other and the audience what is meant by the term sex work.
I mean sex work strikes me as this sort of nebulous vague term meaning anything from taking non-nude lingerie photos all the way to selling $5 blowjobs in the back lot of a 7-Eleven.
So go ahead, starting with you, Destiny.
Yeah, I think when we ask if sex work is good or bad for society, I think it's important to recognize that there are forms of entertainment that we can consume that aren't necessarily like good, but they don't necessarily do a bad.
It's just a matter of whether or not consuming some things for entertainment purposes is like a thing we want to defend in society.
I think broadly speaking, we do.
We would say that like video games, for instance, aren't necessarily good, but I don't know if we would call them bad as long as they're enjoyed in an appropriate environment with an appropriate level of consumption.
So I think as long as we say that people want to buy sex work and people want to sell sex work, and if it can be done so in a way that is safe to both parties and we can't see any like clear or obvious damage to society, then I think that that transaction ought to be protected.
And I think I would say like all other forms of entertainment, we would say it's a good thing in society.
Yeah, so I think sex is the drive everybody has and there's always going to be a demand for consensual sexual services and there's always going to be people who are willing to supply it.
I think a society that grants its citizens certain civil liberties and freedoms, like the ability, like sexual autonomy and the freedom to control their own sex lives is better for society.
And I don't think adding money into that should really change anything.
I think anytime we're addressing whether something is good for society, we have to think of how society would look if we were to try to come in and remove that thing.
And I think, for one, there isn't at least compelling evidence that sex work or porn or any of these things are harmful enough that we should try to do that, especially if we compare it to other things that we allow.
And also, the times that people have tried to come in and restrict those things haven't shown to be very successful.
Let's start with that.
Look at that.
Okay.
And apologies for any coughing.
I've had a cough for three weeks and it still isn't going away.
But anyways, thanks for your patience with me if I start to cough.
I think that sex is an amazing and beautiful thing and it has a design to it.
It has a purpose to it.
And I think to ignore that design is to live in an unreality that brings harm to oneself and other people.
And sex can do two beautiful things.
It can create intimacy and bonding and pleasure, which is amazing between two people.
And it can also bring life into the world.
And I think there's a ton of social data that shows that when you divorce sex from its meaning and you treat it like it's meaninglessness, like it has no meaning, a hedonistic view of sex leads to a lot of social ills and harm.
It's destructive to the people that behave as if it's meaningless, and it's also destructive to people that are also hit by the consequences of that behavior, like a spouse in a marriage whose partner is using porn and they're deeply unhappy, or the children of that marriage, or promoting sex work leading to sexual behaviors that can bring life into the world.
And then you have this life that doesn't have committed parents who are going to raise them and love them.
So I think we have to live in a reality that sex has meaning, it has consequences, it's a beautiful and powerful thing.
And a society that orders its self to recognize that meaning is going to be a healthier, happier society.
And that's what I want for everyone.
Yeah, I would say that, excuse me, see, I'm the one coughing now.
I took it from you.
Sorry.
Sex is a very important thing.
I think everybody, nearly everybody, agrees that sex is something that's really important.
But the problem that I have with sex work, and that's a term actually that I don't consider legitimate, other people want to use it.
That's fine.
But I don't think that sex work exists anymore than friend work exists.
Sex is more than just a biological process or an activity between people.
When sex is reduced to hedonistic in its meaning, that sex is an activity that one engages in for pleasure, that does lead to bad things in society.
It leads to further degrading sexual acts.
Like when we look at popular forms of pornography on the internet based in violence, degradation, scatological urine, feces, rape play, that the human brain is rewired by seeing this kind of stuff.
And this isn't just stuff on the margins either.
To look at what sex work does, if it takes sex and drains it of its meaning to make it hedonistic, we also lose the principles that we need to show that other depraved or disordered forms of sexuality are wrong or bad.
I like Destiny what you said about video games, but if I had to make a video game analogy, I think most video games are actually good or neutral.
There's a few outliers, like let's say the Call of Duty, if you back in 2009, there was the level No Russian where you could go around and you could shoot innocent people at an airport.
And that was very controversial.
And most video games are not like that.
But if video games were like porn, some of the most popular games that people search for would have degrading acts of violence in it towards just innocent people, not zombies.
I think people would see that that's very bad for the human person to degrade themselves in that way.
So I am concerned that pornography and prostitution degrade sex from having a very important meaning and expression of love between persons and leads to an exploitation and problems in society if it's just a hedonistic view.
That's my view.
Those are opening.
All right, good debate, guys.
But I do think it's important that we define that, obviously, like we said, the term sex work is pretty broad here.
I would say I define it into pornography and prostitution with a gray area obviously in between.
It's kind of hard to determine.
But mostly this just involves monetizing the arousal of other people or the sexual arousal of other people.
So you have to be making money and your intention is to sexually arouse other people or bring them to climax.
Obviously, if you're engaged in a sex act.
Gotcha.
Before we, real quick, before we dive into this, I think there's two really different ways this conversation would go.
We can do both.
I think we should decide first.
Do we want to talk about sex work through the lens of the teleology of what we think sex ought to be for?
Or do we want to talk about the impacts on society first?
I think both should be because they're both very, very different arguments.
So do we want to focus on the first one of like what sex ought to be?
I think we can talk about that because I think the big thing that's dividing us is that it is bad to misuse sex.
Sex is a very important thing.
And so if one misuses it, this will tend to lead to all kinds of social problems.
There's natural consequences to the misuse or the abuse of sex.
And you can live in an unreality and sort of mitigate those natural consequences.
But it only goes so far and there are going to be casualties.
So like a question I have is you guys are saying like porn like has been so bad for society.
What are some of these outcomes you've seen since like the late 90s, early 2000s when the internet became a thing?
You guys are saying porn is now making society worse when in a lot of ways it seems like since the late 1990s and early 2000s we have less cases of SA, less child abuse, abortion rates are down like 41%.
I'm not saying this is because of porn, but it doesn't seem like porn has turned everyone into these violent that there are people are having less sex, we have less teen pregnancies, all of that stuff.
So what?
Well, I dispute the claim that the sexual assault, can we say that or we just say sesa?
That's fine.
Yeah, okay.
That's fine.
I dispute the claim that sexual, that porn leads directly to a reduction in sexual assault.
And we have to be careful to not do after, therefore, because of, that porn becomes more prevalent, what happens after that.
If you look at statistics of sexual assault, they have been declining since the 1990s, but since 2012, they have dramatically increased.
Anyone who's watching this, just Google rape, United States, 1990 to 2022, or rape, UK, sorry, grape, UK from 2000, so from 2002 to 2022.
And you see a dramatic rise, like in the UK, it's like from, goes from 60,000 reported cases to 130,000 reported cases from 2012 to 2017.
What's driving that?
Well, can I ask real quick, actually?
Because I just looked these up and I noticed that what you said is exactly right.
From 1992, they fall until 2012, and then they spike.
They spike.
What happened in 2013?
Wasn't 2013 the start of the Me Too movement?
Me Too movement started in 2017 with a list of the.
Was it 2017?
Yeah, I listened all over.
Okay, gotcha.
I thought about that too, that that might be.
Now, I think that when we talk about what causes things to happen in society, it's rarely ever one thing because people are complex.
So, like, why also there's a difficulty in assessing how many rapes occur?
Like, it's not as hard to figure out how many murders occur because you just count the dead bodies or how many cars are stolen.
You count the cars that are taken.
But rape, many rapes are not prosecuted, or they're not reported.
But I think the number of allegations, I do want to hear Lila your thoughts on that.
We see it going up, but I think that one element that would make sense to see that drive from the 2010s is that online pornography had a huge boost during this time period that we have pornhub was started in 2007 and it explodes going through 2012, 2015 on.
And if you're wondering, like the things that I'm concerned about, you look at like Pornhub from 2012 to like 2020, what are the most popular terms being searched?
Most popular terms are teen, mom, stepmom.
This is not just like your vanilla pornography people are looking for, though I find it suspicious that Pornhub isn't reporting the teen search anymore.
So I think that that could be a part in there of that further degradation of sexuality during that time period.
I think that's a very significant point that you just raised about Pornhub and the most popular search terms.
The reality is child sexual assault material has proliferated in recent years with the rise of more internet spread of pornography and the ease of use of the spread of pornography.
Pornography that is violent is increasing, pornography that involves minors is increasing.
So there's that world of that, you know, people involved, and that usually those that have, you know, you can use the word addiction or compulsion around pornography.
There's a need for it to be increasingly intense or violent or disordered in the sexual acts that are being portrayed for them to find it fulfilling.
And so they have to continue on this like porn use journey that they're on.
And it leads to many other victims left in the wake of it, like children.
But another side of it too is a relational side for people that are trying to make families because I think civilization is built on families.
Families is where we're born into.
It's where we find our greatest meaning and worth.
How we're formed as kids, how we become good citizens one day, and how we discover love for the first time.
And today, you know, around 20% of couples report that they experience conflict because of porn use of one of the partners.
Like this is a significant thing afflicting a lot of relationships.
And one of the top-rated things in divorce settlements are the porn use of one of the partners.
So it's really damaging.
And I think the life experience of many people, I'm sure, are listening to this podcast right now, they know people, everyone knows someone who's been hurt by pornography.
So it's really pernicious.
I don't think the pleasure of orgasm balances out the cons.
So the data, I'm sure you guys, when you were looking at porn, it's very mixed.
The big medical consensus is that like this addiction and all that's not a thing.
When it comes to couples, it seems like when the couples are on the same page, that it doesn't lead to negative impacts.
It leads to that when there's one couple of on the same page.
Like when both, like if like in a couple, if they don't care if the other person watches porn, which is a lot of couples, then it doesn't seem to have these kind of negative impacts.
Do you think that's the majority?
I think it's a lot of people.
Do you think the majority of couples, the wife or the girlfriend doesn't mind?
It's really hard to tell.
The majority of people I know, it's like that.
Maybe the majority of people he knows and the majority of people you know, it's the opposite.
So I don't know.
I do think in general, people don't see viewing pornography as like cheating.
Do you think the majority of people think that cheating is wrong though?
Or even asking, can I have a problem?
Cheating is wrong because it violates your boundaries.
But if that's not violating your boundaries, which it's not for a lot of people, then it doesn't seem to be having these negative.
Do you think the majority of wives would think that it's wrong for a husband to even ask if he should be allowed to cheat?
That's not cheating is about violating boundaries.
But if he asks, is it okay if I watch porn when we're not together?
A lot of wives, girlfriends would say yes.
But do you think a lot of the wives and girlfriends saying yes are saying yes because they're really chill about it?
It's not a big deal.
We don't care.
Or they're saying yes because society is telling them you should say yes.
What I was saying about the boundaries is, is it okay for a husband to ask, hey, can we renegotiate these boundaries?
Yeah, of course.
It's only a matter of time.
So there's nothing wrong with a husband saying, hey, because I think many people wives, girlfriends, lots of you would say, no, that's wrong that you would even ask.
That's just not okay to do.
You don't ask for something like that.
Some people, and I think for some people, that's not the case.
I don't know exactly percentages, but the majority, like exactly, if I'm talking about like people, I know this is all I have, anecdotal evidence, unless there's some study done on this, is a lot of people like don't care.
So I think there's a bit of a myth of this idea that, well, if my boundary is that it's okay to share you sexually with someone else, even though we're in a supposedly committed relationship, I think there's a mythology that as long as there's consent between the two adults, then it's okay for one or both to cheat as long as they're no and they're okay.
But you're using the word cheat when we're not talking about cheating.
I'm saying not have sexual fidelity, so have sexual experiences, relationships with other people, whether that's through a screen or in real life.
And there are studies that show, I have one right here that shows that married people who more frequently view porn, even if it's together, even if it's like, we're consenting, this is a thing we're doing together, are more likely to experience marital dissatisfaction down the line than couples that do not look at porn together.
So pornography has a pernicious effect even on consenting couples who are saying, we're doing this together.
It's so great.
That was a longitudinal study based on the social science survey with 2,000 people.
It's not just like a correlative effect.
So even if in our minds we rationalize and we live in the unreality of this is not affecting me, I can have this open marriage or I can have this open relationship and my partner can look at porn or have another sexual relationship, it still affects you in the real world.
And it still affects your long-term potential for happiness and fidelity, not just fidelity, but happiness and fulfillment in the relationship.
And so we can tell ourselves a theory or a myth of like, hey, it's going to be okay.
I'm cool with this.
But in reality, it doesn't work that way in the long run.
But see, like with a lot of this, I'm not sure if you guys are really frustrated looking up this stuff too, because so many studies conflict when it comes to porn and viewing.
And it's like women who view pornography report higher sexual satisfaction when they view it with a partner.
In fact, the data on women, a lot of people.
Why would that be, Jasmine?
Why would that be?
What do you mean, why would that be?
Well, you just said women report higher satisfaction if the porn is being viewed with a partner because at least they feel like I'm not being 100% cheated on in this moment.
No, I don't think that's it.
I think you're just putting your framework on everybody else.
Like I'm a woman too.
I don't care if my partner watches porn.
It's not just me trying to satisfy him.
It's not just me being like, and I think a lot of people, you have to separate being with another partner physically versus porn because I think the numbers there would be vastly different on who's okay if their partner when they're not around is watching porn versus who's okay with them sleeping with another person in real life.
I think you're going to get widely different opinions there from girlfriends, wives, women on whether that's okay or not.
I would say when we look at the studies, like for example in 2023, Engelkamp et al. published a study in the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy and it did a quantitative analysis and the most common themes among couples where the man views pornography is that the woman is glad that he told that he talked about it openly but disapproves or is allowing the husband to look at pornography but does not want to hear about it.
So I think you would say that only a minority of women are positively in favor of this.
It's either negative or ambivalent.
Well and I think the point is the longitudinal study you mentioned and I mentioned is that even those that say they're in favor of it and are like watching it as a couple have worse outcomes down the line.
And I think that's part of the, you know, the point here is that even if you, like you're in a very unique situation, you're making your living doing this thing, right?
And so in your mind, of course it's going to be great.
I know you're going to defend it and say it's going to be great.
But the reality is even people that are defending it or saying it's fine in my marriage down the line don't have the best outcome.
Also, to be fair to you, real quick, because you're talking about the rest of her career, you guys are both ideologically, you could never change your position on this.
That's completely not true.
Of course you're not.
Aren't you both religious?
All the studies show that I try to choose to be Catholic and I can choose to reject my faith.
Sure, but if like the research.
Yeah, but she could also change her career.
My point is that even though we can date we can change our mind on empirical questions about whether a majority of people feel satisfaction in something.
You can't use a social science survey to determine whether something is moral or immoral.
I was only pushing back on the claim that because it's her job, she has to defend it.
I'm not speaking to outcomes though, because what I'm trying to explain here is not my point here is that you can say and one can say, I'm comfortable with this, I'm fine with this, it's okay in my marriage or my relationship.
But my point is the social data shows that people who are comfortable with open relationships or pornography in their relationship have worse outcomes down the line.
The people of the worst, sorry, people have the worst outcomes when it comes to viewing pornography are people who have moral incongruence with it.
That's what all there's been a huge meta-analysis where they looked at the number one determinant or the number one predictor of having bad experiences with porn or quote-unquote porn addiction, which the medical consensus is is not a thing, is moral incongruence and being religious is one of the biggest predictors of that.
So I agree, porn is really bad for Catholics.
I just don't agree that it's bad for everybody.
But my point here is that even people who find a way to morally rationalize pornography or whatever it is, down the line at large, outcomes are worse for open marriages.
That kind of argument is like saying, well, gambling addiction isn't really real because the people who are most upset about gambling are only the people who are upset about losing money.
But people who don't care about losing money, well, they're not really that psychologically disturbed about gambling a lot.
But maybe they should be worried about that, just like people should be worried about what porn is doing to them when it desensitizes their brain and it makes them think that I need more and more hits and more and more disturbing pornography to get off.
But the difference is that with, and that's why the DSM-5 accepts gambling.
They've said multiple times they've rejected porn multiple times because you can't make a link to how much people lose.
They include hypersexuality under impulse control.
Not in the DSM-5.
That's in the World Health Organization.
Yeah, it's a compulsion, but not an addiction.
But is a compulsion a good thing, Jeff?
Well, is hypersexuality as a compulsion to masturbate or is it a compulsion to have sexual experiences?
I mean, either way is a compulsion that you are at the mercy of.
And that often brings a lot of harm.
It's very soft.
No, but I don't see the difference there that if you can be in a situation where I think gambling and porn, they're very similar in their compulsivity.
That there are lots of people who can gamble.
I gamble, and I didn't lose the house.
Lots of people can gamble, but there's a subset when they gamble, it turns their brain on too much, and they need to get more and more highs from it, so they gamble more and more and more.
And just even seeing the slot machine, it does something to their brain.
And they're in a situation where I don't want to be gambling.
I feel bad.
I don't want to be doing this, but they just can't stop.
Similar thing with porn.
There's lots of people who watch porn and they don't turn into maniacs or anything like that.
But there's a subset where it lights up their brains and they know I don't want to be doing this.
I know it's just killing my marriage.
My wife feels awful knowing that I go and look at this stuff.
I feel bad, but I can't stop.
Don't those seem like similar levels of compulsion?
It may seem that way, but the scientific consensus, right, the DSM-5 statement is that other excessive behavioral patterns such as internet gaming have also been described, but the research on these and other behavioral syndromes is less clear.
They make it akin to exercise addiction, shopping addiction, and sex addiction.
data is just not there that it affects you the way gambling does.
That's not me saying it.
That's what the science is.
Yeah, but the DSM-5 is not an infallible Bible for everyone.
You have other studies.
For example, Love et al. published a study on the neuroscientific foundation of pornography addiction.
And that was a 2015 article and a meta-analysis.
And they do link it to other addictions and other compulsions.
So I think if people just look at it, you just take a bird's eye view, the person who feels bad gambling and can't stop, the person who feels bad shopping and can't stop, and the person who looks at porn or sees prostitutes and feels bad and can't stop.
It all seems pretty similar.
The difference is that with porn, they've done multiple studies where it's like somebody who has positive attitudes toward it versus someone who has negative attitudes to it, they're watching the same amount and they're having the same.
Those are short-term studies, though.
But the point is you can tell yourself, again, you can live in unreality and tell yourself, you know, this sexual act of infidelity, I know you don't call it infidelity because someone consented to it, but me going and being polyamorous or me going and having multiple sexual experiences outside of my marriage or my relationship or me going and looking at pornography or using pornography, you can tell yourself and experience short-term pleasure.
You absolutely don't know.
No, I think a lot of wives would say that if their husband is chatting with you on a live cam, they would say that's cheating.
Do you think a lot of wives would feel that way?
I don't know how many wives fine me for their husbands.
Also, wait, hold on, yeah.
When we talk about like cheating or murder, when we talk about like murder, murder is clearly unjustified killing, right?
Where do we talk about murder?
I'm just saying that the word murder means unjustified killing.
It's baked into, there's no such thing as a justified murder.
When you use the word cheating, then you're begging the question, of course it's wrong.
But the question is whether or not these behaviors can be engaged in consensual ways.
So to say like, oh, well.
That takes us back to what is sex for?
That might maybe be.
That's fine.
Yeah, we can go back and get it.
Wait, Hold on, wait.
I'm just going ahead.
I'm just saying that you can't just keep calling it cheating over and over and over again because you're begging the question.
You're loading in with the word cheating is baked into this idea that a boundary is being violated or that a non-consensual activity is happening.
And that might be your position and that might be your opinion, but you can't have that perspective on two other people's boundaries.
If they say, well, in our relationship, we're allowed to watch porn, it's inappropriate for you to call that cheating.
That's going to be a different point in response to Jasmine's.
Well, no, no, hold on.
I'm just being clear because Jasmine contradicted that point and then you tried to explain why.
Well, actually, it is always infidelity when infidelity, again, has baked into it, that you're tautologically trying to define away the argument, which is whether or not you can engage in these behaviors in a healthy way.
And you're saying, well, obviously, you can't because it's infidelity.
It's like, well, you're begging the question.
So if we're going to talk about the behaviors themselves, we can, but you can't call them all the time.
define the terms as you please i think my point here with well hold on wait i'm going to What I'm defining is they please, we all agree that that's what those words mean.
Every single person watching.
Infidelity and cheating means that you are doing something in contradiction to what your partner wants.
We all agree with that, and we all agree that those are bad.
Well, it's specific to sexual behavior outside of your relationship.
But everybody here agrees that infidelity and cheating is bad, right?
Yeah.
Okay, so we all agree with that.
So then why say like, well, this is cheating?
We already agree that it's bad.
You can agree to disagree on the point that, yes, I think it is infidelity or cheating.
So you think that it has sex outside of the world.
Two people are in a relationship and they say that, hey, it's okay if we watch porn.
You think they're still cheating on each other?
I think that is being unfaithful to each other, yes.
Okay.
So she has a different view on it.
Yeah, she has a different definition, I guess.
And we can agree to disagree on that at this point.
But my larger point that I was trying to make with you, Jasmine, or kind of get to the bottom of, was, yes, you can say, I'm feeling great about this.
I just had an orgasm.
This feels great.
I'm so happy with this pornography I just consumed or this webcam person I just spoke with or whatever or had this relationship with or whatever it is.
But in the long term, these things don't serve the person or society.
So we can actually agree with you that hedonism feels good in the moment.
Like, I don't think Trent would even disagree, at least for the person taking part in the hedonism.
They might feel sick deep in their conscience, but I think in the moment, physically, they're going to feel good.
And that's the temptation of hedonism, right?
It's like, it feels good.
Of course, I'm going to do it.
But that's not true.
I mean, women who view pornography report higher sexual satisfaction, improved communication about sex, and their power.
Greater comfort for long-term sexual comfort with their own sexual orientation, more frequent and higher time than a long-term study following.
There's multiple studies.
Almost all the data on women in pornography in the old days, it used to give them negative body image issues.
But since people like me, you know, you're welcome, or like more amateur porn started coming out, actually, women report feeling better about their bodies.
There's a huge study about women feeling much better about their vulvas now because they're seeing different types of vulvas represented in the world.
So you think pornographic accounts online, like there's a lot of Instagram accounts, for example, that are kind of some soft core pornography, are making women at large and young girls at large feel good about their bodies.
Pornography, there's studies about pornography and women who view pornography because a lot of women watch like amateur porn more so than the mainstream studio porn now and you're seeing all different kinds of body types.
So that study that was done on women who now feel like, oh, I actually feel better about my vulva, I feel better about my body, when we compare that to women who viewed porn in the past, when studio porn was the only kind of porn out, we're seeing a big difference.
Yeah, I mean, I'm at large sexual objectification of women online and objectivizing who views porn has been detrimental to young girls.
Men view porn more, but women also do view it.
Sure.
I don't disagree with that.
But I think we just still need to go back to just the idea of my argument, I think would be our argument, that why pornography and prostitution is bad for society is that it encourages this false view about what sex is for that leads to all of these kinds of bad consequences.
Sure, wait, wait, wait.
Also, wait, real quick.
Can I run through some of these?
I'm taking out some of this.
Okay.
Okay, so real quick on just like a from top to bottom.
So well, why don't we go back and forth?
Yeah, sure.
Yeah, yeah, we can.
Yeah, I just want a chance to go back and forth on something because I heard a lot of points from Red Man.
I haven't been able to jump in on a lot of these.
On the first one, so in 2013, the FBI redefined rape to include all forms of penetration on somebody, including like digital penetration.
So that largely explains the huge gap in numbers there.
I don't know if you were trying to imply that in 2013 there was a spike that happened due to pornography or due to some other reason.
I'm saying that's certainly plausible.
It's a part of it.
And you don't have enough evidence to say that that explains all of the increase.
No, but there was a massive redefinition.
It also wouldn't explain the increase at the same time in England.
And you have to do it.
I don't know about the increase in England.
I don't know about the increase in England, but I feel like if the numbers dramatically jumped in 2013, it's strange that you didn't search for the answer for why they jumped and just assumed because it fits the narrative of it must be pornography or whatever.
When a redefining of rape would be a really big reason why the numbers might change.
For instance, if you're familiar with Sweden's sexual assault statistics relating to immigration and everything, like the Swedish redefinition of a lot of these crimes is a reason why some of these numbers jump.
So I think anytime you see a huge chump of the data, I think if you're inquisitive, you'll usually ask, oh, well, I wonder why the data is not.
It changed.
But Destiny, there's also been meta-analysis of porn consumption that shows that many studies that show the link between porn use, and keep in mind, a lot of porn today, some studies say 88% of porn today involves violence or aggressive acts.
I don't know what that is.
And there's a lot of women more likely to do that.
Wait, wait, when you say violence or aggressive acts, what does that mean?
It involves, you know, I mean, at the extreme simulation of 88%.
I watch a lot of porn.
I don't know how much porn is violent or aggressive.
I'm just curious what counts as an aggressive act.
88% of porn is aggressive.
Forceful, causing pain or discomfort to the person that's being involved in the sexual act.
So that's one that was a 2010 study.
Another one that was published by Vera Gray 2021 in the British Journal of Criminology said that it put it at one in eight had acts of violence that would be considered violence, like under things like, for example, binding four limbs and penetration, gagging.
I could buy the one in eighty-five years.
Women are the ones that are disproportionately actually seeking that stuff out.
So is that also just a police?
They're also disproportionately.
I would say I would say that.
Wait, wait, hold on just a sec.
Destiny, you wanted to go and then Lila.
Yeah, I just wanted to go to Destiny.
I could believe the one in eight number, the 88%, there's no chance that that's true.
That's not of all pornography, it's of the 300 most common.
Sure.
I'm just saying 88% of all pornography being violent, unless you're defining oral sex as violent.
There's no shot that the number is that high.
That's just a lot of fun.
It's of the most popular.
And that's why on Pornhub, you're having teens and then you're having step parents involved or stepmom involved.
I think urinating and ejaculating on somebody's face, I think that's violent and degrading.
I understand what you're saying, but to the vast majority of normal human beings, urinating on somebody's face is far different than ejaculating on somebody's face.
Maybe in the Catholic world, those are similar things, but in the ordinary world, those are two completely and totally separate actions.
I think most people in the regular world don't would consider that utterly degrading.
I'm saying those two things are different.
If you want to classify both of them as degrading, that's the same thing.
Why are they different?
Because I don't know how much into detail, but urinating on somebody's face, the kink of water sports is considered to be generally more extreme.
There's far fewer people that are into it, and you're involving non-sexual fluids now in a sexual sense.
That's just considered a more hardcore type of why.
If anything, urine is probably a more sterile liquid.
And just because fewer people do it, doesn't mean it's more extreme.
I'm sure there's fewer people who do like Star Trek cosplay porn, but that doesn't mean it's more extreme than others, just because it's minority.
I think that's just yours.
It's probably considered more extreme.
It's not an intuition.
It's because generally the further you get away from things that are less directly involved with sex and then the more uncomfortable those things tend to make people, the more we would classify those things as being kind of like extreme.
I think it's like a bro.
I mean, I don't know if, I'm sure we could have a huge debate on like, is this, is bukaki porn considered extreme or is it just like a hardcore kinker bottom?
We can get into it.
I'm just saying in general, the number of people into a kink like water sports, or you mentioned like scatology, like stuff like that.
Water sports, you're talking about, is that just urinating on others or is it other?
Urinating on people.
Yeah.
Or any, I think anything involving people.
I'm not sure.
I don't.
Okay.
Maybe Brian can fill us in more on.
Because I like, because that's just euphemism.
I enjoy water sports.
I don't enjoy that.
Well, that's what it's called.
No, I don't care.
I mean, people can come up with all this sort of stuff to smooth over what is going on.
Hold on.
I'm just trying to give an accurate accounting of how you refer to these things if you're looking them up or trying to find them.
Go ahead.
Did you want to ask anything else?
I reject this idea of like, well, as pornography increases, child sex material increases.
Therefore, that's a fact, though.
That's fine that it's a fact.
But what I notice is oftentimes with porn, to try to refute the central point, people will point to a negative outcome that might be increasing and pretend that that counts as a reputation of the single point.
A statement that I can't.
That's not what we did, though, Destiny.
That's exactly what you're doing.
You're saying that as pornography increases, child sexual material might increase, which means it's an attack against pornography.
But I would say it's a form of pornography.
Let me finish my statement.
What I would say, it is a form of pornography.
Literally, the increase of anything involving, say, children playing video games necessarily increases the exposure of them to people looking to abuse children.
That doesn't necessarily mean that online video games or children playing online video games are bad.
It just means you have to control for the negative outcome of people abusing people, playing online video games.
Same thing with pornography.
It's not an argument against pornography if some people might abuse it in a way.
There might be some people that actually record actual sexual assault.
That's not an argument against pornography.
It's an argument against people doing that bad thing.
It is an argument of the most commonly searched for terms are things like teen, barely legal, and they're constantly searched over and over as the most popular thing, which people aren't doing with like video games.
Here's a theory that I think that the social data proves very clearly.
And this is the point, that when we disorder sex, when we divorce sex from love, fidelity, commitment, family, the whole project of marriage, I'm going to, you know, sex can bring life into the world.
If we do bring the life into the world, we're going to stick together, love each other, build a family together.
When you take sex out of that context, out of the context of love and marriage, and you put it in the context of my goal, my orgasm, what I want, right?
At whatever cost I can pay, provided someone else consents, right?
It's not just, I think, that person that will suffer and the other people engaged directly in that that will suffer, but it is children.
And so you said, well, yes, okay, there's a proliferation of child sexual assault material.
Yeah, yeah, but that's not saying porn is responsible for that.
That is a form of the porn that's being created and consumed at large in our society.
So to say that children are somehow unscathed by the proliferation of porn, I think, is totally untrue, Destiny.
That's fine.
And in addition to that, and in addition, I'll just say one other thing.
The flip side of this, we've debated on this before, Trent has as well.
Sexual hedonism at large, in addition, leads to what we have today, which is abortion on demand.
You mentioned abortion rates are so low, they're actually very high.
They're nearly a million a year.
They're lowest country.
When porn, with the wide availability of porn, it's gone down a lot.
But the internet is.
You guys are saying, oh my gosh, there's all this violent stuff now.
I'm looking at the data.
There's nothing linking pornography.
There's violence.
There are actually a lot of studies that link the wide availability of pornography to less.
There's more studies a day.
We found that in the Czech Republic in Denmark.
Three or four decades ago.
It was find Playboy magazine or go to an adult video store.
Today, porn is everywhere.
So why are we not seeing this proliferation of violence and all these terrible things?
We are seeing a lot of people.
No, no, no.
Those are all less laws.
When there were just those Playboy magazines, we had way more of that stuff than we do now with pornography material.
So is your argument that we had less child sexual assault material?
Child abuse has declined.
Are you saying that child sexual assault material can be created without child abuse?
I'm saying that child abuse cases, all of those have gone down.
I'm also saying that STD rates have got, this is according to the, that's incorrect.
So is it just incorrect?
Okay, well, what data do you have?
So your argument is that the proliferation of porn, somehow that has led to less led to, I'm not saying causation abuse.
So what's your argument?
My argument here is that if porn became widely available and it's so violent and it's so terrible, then how come we're not seeing those outcomes?
Why is there a lot of child sexual assault material on the internet and it increases the risk of money?
Because we have the internet now.
We didn't have the internet before.
But since we've had the internet, we've had less abortion, less syphilis, less gonorrhea, less teen sex, less teen birth rates have fallen 33% according to the CDC.
SA has declined.
And then your argument is that child sexual assault material is not porn?
Or what is your argument?
My argument, I'm not even talking about child sexual assault material.
My argument here is that when porn became widely available, we didn't see an increase in violence.
In fact, I have lots of studies here that show that once porn became widely available, like for instance, in the Czechoslovakia.
When did porn become widely available in the United States?
Around the early 2000s.
That's what I read.
So I think I can understand the argument you're making, but I don't think it bears out.
For example, with divorce rates, as an example, as I said earlier, one of the second highest most quoted thing when it comes to divorce today is the pornography use of one of the partners.
Divorce rates have also gone down since the early 2000s.
But overall, they've gone up over the last year.
Not since the porn.
So this is my question.
Since porn has become available, they have not gone up.
They've actually gone down.
Since the early 2000s.
One reason they go down is people are choosing not to marry themselves.
But what I'm saying, and I don't think they're choosing not to, I don't think they're not choosing to get married.
Porn is available.
But you have no link to that.
My question is.
But hold on, I think it's a fact.
Is a fact that the sexual revolution, which took place in this country mid-20th century, which opened the floodgates of pornography, first with, you know, Playboy Magazine and then later on with the internet, which opened the floodgates to, you know, no-fault divorce, more divorce, swinger culture, open marriages, all of this stuff, abortion, all of this stuff, that those all things, those evil, those social ills, all mushroomed together.
And they still exist in large quantities in our society today together.
Because when you treat sex just as orgasm or as something that, as an adult, I'm entitled to as long as I consent and someone else is consenting and sex has no other morality around it, you are opening the door and we have the doors wide open to divorce, to abortion, to a lot of the unhappiness that we're seeing in relationships.
So you said all the social data agrees with you, but I'm pointing out that abortion rates have fallen 41% since the 19th century.
But abortion rates since porn has been entered into the mainstream has gone up over the last 50 years dramatically.
But since, no, they became widely available in the late 90s.
So the CDC, abortion rates have fallen 41%.
I don't think the data shows the 1990s.
People look it up.
This is the CDC that's saying this.
But you don't think that porn is the only reason.
I don't think that.
But my question to you is: if it's such a terrible thing, where are these terrible outcomes?
And I'm not saying that.
I'm trying to say that porn, whether it was the Playboy porn or it's the vastly available internet porn.
So you think they're the same?
I think that they are part of the same problem, which is divorcing meaning from sex and welcoming, putting arms around hedonistic culture that breaks down families and breaks down marriages.
And I'm saying that in the last 50 years in this country, we have seen unprecedented divorce, unprecedented abortion.
We've seen unprecedented STIs.
The sexual revolutions harm.
Are we talking about the sexual revolution or porn?
Because I'm not talking about 50 years.
I'm talking about since porn became widely available.
You guys are saying all these terrible things, teen, mom, porn, so violent.
Where are the outcomes that show that this is such a harm?
Because I'm not seeing that.
I have three studies here.
Actually, there's a lot of evidence that porn has a cathartic effect.
Do you think it's bad, Jasmine, that the average first stage of exposure to pornography is 11 years old?
I don't think that's ideal, but I don't think that we're seeing.
I said, is it bad?
Yeah, I think it's bad, but I'm not seeing that it's so bad that it's leading to such terrible outcomes because it's not.
Where are these outcomes?
What happens when children are exposed to pornography?
Actually, there's also a lot of conflicting data on that.
A lot of the data on this is really frustrating because it's really conflict.
I have studies here.
Well, we're living in a not.
But, Jasmine, part of the reason for that is we're living in a social media.
Wait, hold on one second.
I want to know.
Is it bad when 11-year-olds, their first exposure to pornography, I'm saying that's a bad thing.
Yeah, it's a bad thing in the sense that it's a lot of fun.
Why is it bad?
What does it do to them?
I don't, it's like not, they're not old enough.
Their prefrontal cortex isn't developed enough to be able to look at that and realize what's real, what's not real, how sex is supposed to go.
So I don't think porn is exactly what we're doing.
How is sex supposed to go?
Probably not like the right, if you're on porn hub watching like eight people gangbang someone, they're gonna think that that is normal.
That's not Non-normal?
Not.
Okay, wait, Okay, I think when we talk about how sex of us go, okay.
I think we have to build a constructive case for what are different ways that we can view sex.
You guys seem to be really happy to say that sex ought to be this, or society's destroyed sex, or blah, I think that you can posit a separate argument that sex is actually something that the body is capable of experiencing that is a lot of fun, and we've evolved beyond the need to view sex as just a tool or a facility to pump out children and instead can view it as a way to bond with people or have fun or enjoy recreationally.
I think that we have the tools today to enjoy that because we've got things to protect or cure STDs.
We've got ways to prevent pregnancies.
We've got different types of birth controls.
I think that it's okay that society has taken on a different view of sex, just like we've taken on a different view of women working jobs or a different view of what kind of clothes can we wear because we have air conditioning or a different view of what are the hours that we can be awake where we can travel.
I think it's just natural that different things will evolve over time that will view different things.
Yeah, we can view things differently based on our way of engaging with them.
According to the Guttmacher Institute, for women that get abortions, 50% of them in the month that they got pregnant were using contraception.
So when you kind of say, well, now we have these technologies that can somehow sort of blunt the natural consequences of sex.
I'm sorry, wait, what was that supposed to refute?
So what's that supposed to refute is you're saying that we have all of these powers now to change the way we engage with sex.
To change the way we engage with sex.
Was anything I said incorrect?
I think it's completely, it's wholly incorrect.
Do you think that contraception reduces the likelihood?
Well, no, no, let's put one status.
Let me finish.
No, hold on.
I'm going to ask my question.
I didn't even barely talk for two sentences, and you wanted to cut me off with the thing about abortion.
So I'm going to ask you: do you think contraception is effective at dramatically reducing the rates of getting impregnated?
I think that at large, contraception has led to the mindset of contraceptive.
I'm going to ask the same question again when you finish this.
It depends.
Over time, it actually increases.
It actually leads to more abortion.
Okay.
Do you think that contraception is effective at preventing pregnancies?
It can in the short term, but over time it leads to more abortion.
Really?
Do you have any evidence that somebody that is on?
So you're saying, so you're saying you have a study right now that shows that somebody on contraception, on average, has more children over their lifetime than somebody that doesn't use contraception.
No, what I'm saying is that you're not going to be able to do that.
Okay, so then you don't have any evidence for that.
I don't know.
No, no, you're giving me a lot of socially constructed opinions you have no data for based on your presumptions of how you think that sex should operate religiously, but I reject those things.
So obviously we know that we know that contraception is a lot of fun.
We are not making a case that sex ought to be done religiously or ought to be done in this particular way.
We are just saying that the view that prostitution and pornography require, which is that sex is just a hedonistic activity.
Nobody, why does it require that?
Because it would be wrong if it, okay, well, what would you, how would you answer the question?
It can have many purposes.
I think that when I go to a massage parlor, I'm paying 80 bucks to get a massage.
Right.
That can just be a person giving me a massage.
With a partner, having a partner rubbing your back or your neck, that can feel like a lot more romantic.
So just because I go to the massage poll doesn't mean I devalue the experience with a partner, no?
Or do you think it does?
Earlier, you used the phrase, sex work isn't real because sex for hire doesn't make sense.
It's like a friend for hire.
What is a therapist?
Can't you pay a therapist to review your problems with them and then they give you feedback?
But here's the thing.
And once you stop paying a sex worker, they stop having sex with you.
Yeah.
But the whole point is that.
That's why it's called work.
Yeah.
No.
Because we don't have it.
It's more meaningful than that.
Of course, it is more meaningful.
I would agree.
Just like having a really good, intimate conversation with a friend is more meaningful than having an intimate conversation with a therapist.
Of course.
Only because I'm following you on your attention.
Well, I was trying to ask, you made a so if sex work is, so if sex work is just a skill, it's something that people enjoy.
Yeah.
Do there have to be, is this something that only specialists can.
Well, let's say, for example, so Jasmine, a lot of people do only fans, they have other jobs.
Like you're a lawyer, you'll have other jobs.
So you can have someone who's a masseuse and does only fans, or a therapist, and does only fans.
Right?
Okay.
So you could be like a sex worker by night, masseuse therapist during the day.
Would it be okay if they offered those sex services as a part of their day job?
Being a massive person?
Depends on what the day job is.
If it's like a lawyer or something, or if it's like a therapist, probably not because you're violating an appropriate relationship to have with somebody.
But if it's like your auto mechanic and he also sells you like pictures of his dick, it's probably not as big of a deal.
Let me give you another example.
So my wife was a nurse to the hospital, so she worked with neurotelemetry and people have brain injuries, spine injuries, stuff like that.
And also older people and people who would need things like bathing and cleaning.
So they need to be clean, including in clean their peritoneum, perineal care.
So just like groin, crotch, butt, that kind of stuff.
Sure.
And some of them would ask her, and this would also happen to other nurses: hey, while you're down there, could you just like play with my wee wee a little bit or masturbate me?
So let's say you have a nurse who is also an OnlyFans, is a sex worker on the side.
Should she be allowed to offer that?
My understanding, and I'm not a medical professional, but my understanding is that when you're making decisions related to patient care, if a patient under your care, engaging in friendly or sexual relationships with them can cause an inappropriate crossing of boundaries that compromises your ability to deliver good medical care.
So I would say that in the case where somebody's like a therapist or a medical professional that's making decisions relating to your health care, it's probably lawyers can't even send.
Hold on, wait, how did my relation of therapy to friendship break anything that I just said?
Because you're saying that you can't enter this new dynamic of sexual relationship in a healthcare setting because that somehow violates the health.
Yeah, what's being violated?
That's Trent's question.
Why?
What did I just say was being violated?
What is being violated?
I said it like three times.
I'll repeat it again.
It's compromising your ability to deliver care.
But if the care is included in the pressure, let me ask you this question.
Is it's the sex work, you wouldn't include sex work and health work together in care unless you're because of the.
I mean, we could invent a standard where that's true.
What if you're going to a hospital and part of the care is my husband has issues with erectile dysfunction.
Maybe part of the health services is them jerking you off to make sure everything's working.
In that case, you would combine it.
Would you agree?
Or would you say that's still inappropriate?
Wait, I want to answer for that.
Would that be an appropriate combination of like?
No, I don't think you should go to people to jerk you off.
No, that's not.
Do you think ignoring your personal sexual views, do you think it would be appropriate?
It's not a personal sexual view.
It's the view that's actually been held for thousands of years by many millions of people.
So if you're going to a hospital and they're trying to check you for a working sexual function, them seeing if you can get an erection, that would be an inappropriate way for them to examine you?
I think if they are really trying to determine if you can get an erection, and you're a married person in a marriage, there's a lot of people who are not.
What if you're not a married person?
What if you're single?
Why would they need to determine that?
Because believe it or not, there are people in this world that even when they're not married, they want to ensure that their sexual function is working.
And sex is a single person.
Wait, no, no, wait, I really want to answer that.
I really want to answer that.
Do you disagree with that?
You don't think your sexual function is relevant if you're not married?
No, I think it's relevant, but I think that I don't think it would be good care to go into a hospital.
Wait, I really want to answer this.
So if you have problems with erectile dysfunction, it would be inappropriate for a health care provider to assess the ability of you to get an erection while you're at the hospital.
That's inappropriate.
I mean, I think it depends.
I'm curious what the standard of care is for that right now.
I mean, do you know what the standard of care is?
I'm not, but I'm asking you as a hypothetical.
But I'm asking, if you go to the hospital, you have problems with erectile dysfunction.
Doctor, I've got issues.
And I say, okay, we're going to give you a medication.
We're going to try something.
And let's see if we'll see if we can get erected.
I don't think it would be a strange form of care to say, well, let's see.
I didn't ask if it was strange or not.
I don't think it would be appropriate.
No, you don't think it would be appropriate.
So that type of medication is totally out of the way.
Giving a medication would be appropriate.
It's fine to use medical treatment.
It's not just to stimulate them.
It's fine to use medical treatment to see if your body is working properly.
It's fine to do things to acquire semen, for example.
You might use, for example, with some patients use electroejaculation, stimulation of the prostate in order to get.
Well, for some patients, that's what you have to do, including if they're paralyzed.
Okay, I'm understanding.
What you're just saying is a way more hardcore kink than water sports, but okay, go ahead.
No, to see if you can ejaculate, to see if you're able.
There is a difference between trying to determine if your body is functioning properly and saying that sex is just a service that can be provided.
So hold on.
So if we provide people in the hospital, we provide them all kinds of services to make sure they're comfortable, right?
Like we give them television.
They don't need that to live, right?
Okay.
But it makes them comfortable, correct?
Yeah.
So we give patients stuff in the hospital to make sure that they stay as comfortable.
We give them television.
We give them different food they can choose.
We give them bathing, obviously.
And when they're very uncomfortable, we turn them.
We do things to make sure they're comfortable.
So if the patient says, sex would make me very comfortable, why wouldn't, if a nurse can clean the guy's testicles and penis and is already handling all of this, why not just put on the gloves and give him a hand job?
Well, one is because it's illegal.
Two, if it were legal, my guess would be the procedure for that would be you would bring in a third party or you'd contact out to somebody's house.
Why do you bring in a third party?
I've already given the guy.
Let me finish.
Let me finish.
Why do you need to bring in a third party to give the guy a hand job and not a third party to wipe his butt and clean between his peritoneum?
Because when you start engaging in romantic or sexual or who said that romantic is just getting a lot of people.
I said or means any of these.
When you engage in romantic or sexual or friendship type things, that these things are all inappropriate because they compromise your ability to objectively offer care.
For instance, would it be inappropriate to say, well, can you please just jerk me off?
You're going to clean my ass?
Yes, that would be, because if a patient starts to have a sexual relationship with a practitioner, then if that practitioner has to make a tough call on that patient's health, that might become right.
The same way that, let's say the person starts saying, like, man, you know, my kids never come.
But why does sex do this, though?
Wait, let me just finish.
Hold on, I got to finish this one thing.
Oh, my God.
Okay.
Let's say that the patient comes in or the nurse comes in and the patient starts talking to the nurse, like, man, my kids aren't calling them.
I don't know what to do.
And then the nurse sits around and they start talking, blah, That would be equally inappropriate.
That would be incredibly inappropriate.
If they started to form a very close friendship with a patient, that would also be inappropriate.
Because again, if a tough call has to be made on the patient, at some point, you might not be able to make that tough call because now your judgment is comprised.
This is why surgeons that have like wives or husbands don't operate on them because their judgment is comparable.
What if you can give hand jobs and you're not attached?
It's just sex work.
Well, right now, in terms of how human relations work, it seems to be the case.
So you're saying something very important, which is that there is an emotional psychological component to sex.
As somebody, so as a lawyer, we have rules on how we're able to engage with people.
Well, I'm not allowed to understand.
I want to make sure I'm understanding Destiny correctly and what he just said.
Hold on, let Lila go there.
And I do want to get back to the contraception thing, but you had said that there's an emotional, romantic connection to sex that's, I think, I don't know if you can.
Oftentimes there can be, yes.
Yes.
So that sounds like more than work.
It can be.
Yeah.
So you're taught, when you guys talk about sex work.
No, hold on.
Wait, wait, wait.
I'm sorry, real quick.
I reject that.
What do you mean?
That sounds like more than work.
When you talk about sex work, like we can sell this commodity of sex, like to lead, like it's a service.
You're saying, well, but more emotions and psychological romantic feelings get involved.
Therefore, it doesn't belong in the professional setting of healthcare.
That's what you're saying.
So how can you still say it's work and it's a professional professional?
Doesn't teach work?
Yes.
Do they have emotional connections to children and parents?
And they should.
That's what I'm saying.
Okay, so then that argument doesn't make any sense.
So what's the next one?
Well, are you saying that a nurse should not have an emotional connection at all to her patient?
Generally, they try to minimize it, yes.
They should have empathy.
That's actually required for nurses to have empathy.
They shouldn't have empathy.
They should have compassion.
They're two different things because empathy can compromise your ability to live.
Are you saying a nurse can't understand the personal background, desires, hopes, and develop a friendly rapport with a patient?
There's a distinction where there isn't.
No, no, it's a key.
It's a crucial distinction.
Having a friendly rapport with somebody is different than becoming personally, emotionally invested in the outcome.
You have to maintain an appropriate level of distance, whether you're a lawyer, whether it's a lawyer.
And I have a great impression.
Sex crosses that line because of what sex just intrinsically means.
Many things cross that line.
I just said when you're a lawyer, you can accept certain gifts.
You can't get too close to your clients.
They can't become like best friends to you.
That's going to cause problems for you down the line.
We take entire classes on this on all the ways.
We're not supposed to get too close with our clients.
And it's not all sexually.
It's even just in friendship.
So professionalism, the standard for professionalism, I agree, it's not professional to offer sexual services to somebody in a setting where that's not appropriate.
But there are other things that aren't appropriate either.
It doesn't mean they're all bad and that you can't use the interface.
So I think, I mean, the point that you're making, though, is that sex is personal.
It involves Rome.
It can involve romance.
It involves feelings.
It involves this connectivity that you sometimes can't help but have.
And that's our point.
Well, I have a question.
We have it with you.
That's not your point.
That is a very important part of our point.
No, that's every single human's point.
We all understand that.
Everyone here agrees that a therapist.
You understand that, but you also think it's acceptable to have these sexual relationships with potentially thousands of people online.
You're not understanding the whole point of your argument has to do with dual relationships.
And you're trying to apply this to singular relationships.
We all agree here that a therapist having sex with a patient would be bad, right?
Why?
Because it passes.
What do you mean by what?
Let's say the therapist is a sex.
Sex therapist should be a person.
A sex therapist is obviously not the type of therapist.
Why hold on to the other one?
No, but that's the thing.
It's illegal for sex therapists to have sex with their own clients.
I don't know.
They can talk to them and not even.
Hold on.
I'm not even sure if that's true.
Hold on.
Okay.
Let me.
Okay.
I can't ask a question because I'm not going to get any engagement.
You might as well.
That's not true, Jeff.
I'm not.
It is a very simple question: can a therapist have sex with a patient?
And then you're like, well, what about sex therapy?
No, no, no, no.
Well, I think that considers what's a form of mind.
And they can't because it compromises your ability to give good therapy.
I am saying is that if sex is just a service that is provided, and it has this.
We don't have to.
I understand the next stage of your argument.
I'm trying to show why that's ridiculous.
I understand it.
You're going to say, well, then I will take it out of the dual role to the single role and I'll give you a second.
But wait, wait, wait, wait.
Let's just explore this for two seconds and we can go to whatever you're going to jump to, okay?
A therapist cannot have sex with a patient because it compromises their ability to deliver good therapy.
No, that's not the only reason.
Oh my God.
Go ahead.
It does.
It would also be equally inappropriate for a therapist to form a close friendship with and to go out and like have drinks or meals with a patient.
But it doesn't mean that drinks and dinner are super inappropriate for the future.
Not just that, because when a therapist has sex with a patient destiny, it's grape.
Because the therapist has a power imbalance over the patient and can manipulate their emotions and there are consent issues involved.
Sure, that's true as well.
That's not what we're focusing on here.
That's an important reason.
Okay, we can pick a different, we can pick a nurse and a patient as well.
I think it must be said that a lot of people involved in creating pornography and prostitution consider what they do a form of therapy for the client.
But that's not at all.
There is a reason that the sexual revolution has coincided with us being more cognizant of things like consent because the whole point of the sexual revolution and allowing people more freedom and how they want to express their sexuality is that it's a choice, but it's still your choice, right?
That's why things like marital rape was outlawed in the 90s.
We have the rape shield doctrine.
You're not allowed to bring up a victim's past sexual history in a sexual assault case.
We have the Me Too movement.
So I don't think like, yeah, power imbalances are important because that can get in the way of consent.
So consent is super important, but what you choose to do is not.
That's what the sexual issue is.
It's on accident that those two things happen.
And Me Too is a reaction against the excesses of the sexual revolution.
So, I mean, I think to say that all these things are given to us by the sexual revolution is totally favorable.
It is, though.
All right, like marital rape, marital rape, feminist, rape, early feminist.
You're saying me too is a reaction to what?
Me too is the reaction to the excesses of the sexual revolution.
I don't think so.
And a lot of the reform that was requested in the way that marriages took place and marital rape protection was early feminists who are not sexual revolutionaries, who themselves wanted family values, and many of them were pro-life.
So to say that it was the sexual revolutionaries, I'm saying that those two things coincided at the same time because the whole point of the sexual revolution was that, okay, you're not going to be ruined now because you choose to have casual sex, but if someone comes in because there was a lot of inappropriate harassment, rape, et cetera, statute of limitations has been increased due to the Me Too movement, all of these things coincided because consent is a huge part of the sexual revolution.
I think that.
And Me Too is a response to people seeing women as commodities that they can acquire and seeing sex as a means of acquiring that commodity, basically.
It's responding to a dehumanizing view of sex.
Now, I agree, many people don't have that view, but I do think that the hedonistic view of sex does lead to that.
But here's the question I wanted to ask, just to get back to what sex is for and why I think it shows that this view of sex is absurd.
All right.
Suppose you had a friend and they said, because this is parlaying on the idea that sex is just a hedonistic activity people can share with consent.
Like, say, for example, like martial arts.
So martial arts, if I go down this...
Nobody thinks sex is like that, by the way.
No, no, hold on.
Let me make the analogy.
If I start martial arts with somebody without their consent, I'll go to jail because that's assault, right?
If I just go out and punch somebody.
But I can ask them, hey, do you want to spar with me a little bit?
And then that's okay because we have consent and it's this kind of activity.
Now, imagine that you, would it be healthy to have a friend who says, hey, I'm glad you and I are getting into martial arts together, but I really feel like we can only be friends if you only do martial arts with me.
Or we can only be friends if you only do tennis with me.
Or I want you to be my only friend.
You're the only friend that I have.
With those examples, would you say that those are disordered friendships?
Probably, yeah.
All right, so my next question would be: is it disordered for someone to say, I want you to be the only person I have sex with, you're the only person who has sex with me.
Do you think that's disordered?
Not necessarily, no.
What's the difference between activities that are pleasurable and consensual, martial arts, chess, tennis, spending time together, and sex then?
What is the difference between the two?
That one is disordered.
It's a friendship you should not get in.
And the other, we would say, not even that it's not disordered, but it's the way things ought to be.
It might be the love of your life.
What's the difference?
The difference is going to be the preference of the people that are partaking in these things.
Some people might feel like they like to do martial arts with a lot of people.
And for sexual activity, I think people tend to prefer to be more exclusive with that.
There's probably other things we could think of that.
Is that natural?
Should we think like that's the way they ought to treat sex?
Whether or not it's natural or not is a separate question.
Well, it seems obvious that if someone says, I want you to be my only friend and you can't have other friends, we'd say that's a friendship you probably shouldn't get into, right?
Generally, yeah.
Then why don't you?
But like if we're going to use like why don't we say the same thing then about I want you to be the only person I have sex with?
In fact, we say that's a good thing.
If a subscriber told to me, you're the only person I want you to, I'm the only person I want you to have, I would say no.
That's not the context of this.
Yeah, because you're selling a business and you can't have one customer.
Yes, but my point is that just because that's one way to see sex is like an intimate, monogamous thing, there are a lot of people who don't view it that way, who don't want to view it that way.
And I'm wondering back to my original question, where are these outcomes that are so detrimental to society that's happening?
Because some people, people that want to be polyamorous are not getting in the way of being a person.
Well, you don't think that 20% of couples expressing unhappiness because of porn use in the relationship between the people?
20% of levels?
Where is that?
Yeah, this is a study from, and then also the statistic about the amount of people that are pornography use being listed as one of the reasons for divorce.
You don't think that that's meaningful?
It couldn't many things that are listed as divorce, but I have a bunch of studies here that show that since, like I just told you, porn, that porn actually can have a cathartic effect on violence, that STD rates come down.
There's a huge study that shows that AIDS, or yeah, HIV, to go down by 30 to 40% if we were to just decriminalize prostitution.
So there is evidence going both ways when it comes to porn and sex work, and I don't see anything that's super conclusive that this is just a terrible harm.
More than something like alcohol.
I'm not sure if I can do it with the Institute, by the way.
I think that's a good question.
About 20% of couples report a degree of conflict in their relationship due to pornography.
One in four men report hiding porn from their partner on the internet.
One in four men.
That's awesome.
Okay.
Hiding it from their partner.
Probably because they're looking at that prostate electrostem porn, okay?
But I think the larger kind of the meta point here, and you were speaking to this earlier, Destiny, but then we kind of got, you know, the conversation unraveled a bit.
But you were saying about how we have all this technology, and so now we can do, now we can treat sex recreationally.
Did I understand you correctly?
I'm saying that it's allowed us to change the way we view sex, yes.
Okay, so my point is that even with the technology, the natural consequences and outcomes still find a way.
Even if we can live in unreality for a short time with the technology, you know, I'm just on OnlyFans for a moment.
It's not going to hurt my relationship.
I'm going to use a condom here, so I'm not going to get pregnant, whatever it is, right?
Or I'm not going to get this girl pregnant, whatever it is.
The consequences catch up.
And when I brought up the Gutmacker Institute statistic, the reason it mattered is because half of the women who are getting abortions, according to the research arm of Planned Parent of the Biggest Abortion Chain, report using contraception in the month that they got pregnant.
So they were using it.
They thought they were doing the safe sex thing.
And then they get pregnant and they show up for the abortion.
So my point here is.
You keep bringing up the stat.
Like, it wouldn't surprise me if, for instance, like, 70% of people that die in car accidents are wearing seatbelts.
That doesn't mean wearing a seatbelt at bad.
It means that, like, if you're going to be in a car accident, you're probably in a car, you're probably wearing a seatbelt.
If you're getting pregnant and you're having sex, you're probably wearing self-organization.
Getting into the car is promiscuous sex.
Maybe we should consider not getting into the car so much.
Okay, understanding that that number you're giving, when they're saying like people were on the right.
If getting into the car is going and sleeping with the prostitute.
If getting into the car is healthy.
There's a sex culture.
Then maybe.
I want to ask you about your study.
You brought up a study.
I'm not familiar with this.
You said that, what was that number that you quoted?
You said 50% of people said they were using birth control or whatever, and they got the Gutmacker instruction.
The types of, okay, in that study, for birth control, did they include natural family planning and pull-out method?
No, this is contraception, birth control pills, and condoms or barrier methods.
Pull-out method and natural family planning are both considered forms of contraception.
I mean, that's like a very small fraction of a percent of people who even use that, anyways.
First of all, that's not true.
That is.
Especially among Christians.
Natural family planning is considered one of the only ethical ways to do contraception, which you know.
No, this is largely birth control pills and barrier method condoms or diaphragms or otherwise.
Okay, all right.
Be careful if that's true.
But like even so.
It is true because we know there's a failure rate.
There's a failure rate, even with sterilization.
There is a failure rate, but like perfect use failure rate is like 1%.
So you're having a lot of promises.
So why you're having regular promiscuous sex, regular sex, even with one partner that you don't want to have a kid with, eventually there's going to be, you know, for many, there will be a failure.
No, hold on.
For many, there won't be.
It's a 1% failure rate.
That's the opposite.
Let's say it's almost a million abortions a year enough.
330 million people?
I don't know if that's enough.
Well, and by the way, can I say one other point?
Many people are saying that's not what 1% means.
1% is not many.
One other point, because I know that you think abortion typically is acceptable up to a certain point.
There's over 10,000 abortions that happen after the marker where you think it's a human life.
Okay.
So is 10,000 abortions, 10,000 murders, you would consider it murder of children that are viable in this country a year.
Is that worth the promiscuity of adults?
10,000 murders.
So you're linking that to sex work and promiscuity?
I don't.
I don't see anything.
Oh, it's affecting 20.
Alcohol is also like, I think 10% of divorces list like alcohol is an issue.
Is alcohol bad now?
I think alcoholism is bad.
Alcoholism is bad, but alcohol, it doesn't have to be alcoholism.
Do you think that's in moderation?
So porn, I agree.
If you have a call, problematic porn use is bad, but is porn bad and is sex bad?
That's great.
I think porn is bad.
What is the difference?
Jasmine, what's the difference between porn use and problematic porn use?
Problematic porn use is where people personally identify, that's the medical term, with it being a problem in their lives, which is a very small.
The biggest, the only representative sample we have puts it at like 4%.
Is it possible for someone to use porn in a bad way if they don't personally feel anything bad about it?
What do you mean?
Can you give me an example of how using porn in a bad way?
A husband looks at porn, talks to OnlyFans girls, masturbates to them, and his wife hates it, but he doesn't think it's a big deal, and it's really hurting their marriage.
Just like if he drinks alcohol too much and she doesn't think and she doesn't like it, but he still does it, that's a bad, it's bad when people violate the boundaries of the world.
Now, let me try another one then.
Let's say, what if the wife says, you talking to any woman on the face of the earth hurts me and makes me upset?
Would you say that that wife has an inappropriate boundary?
No, because there's a lot of people that are like that.
That her husband cannot talk to any woman, even like a female secretary.
She's so hyperjealous.
My family is from the Middle East.
This is literally how they set up systems.
Do you think that's good?
I don't think that's good, but if there are people who that's the way that they're happy, I don't think that's good.
I think the way you guys live your life has been great.
guys don't think the way I live my life is great the point is that when we allow people to do what's conducive to their own happiness that's but what I'm asking you is that can a spouse have boundary expectations that are reasonable and unreasonable I think if we're going to use like a reasonable person standard, that depends on like the community share.
In certain communities, that's, and in your community, porn is talking about this community, even this community out here who is, you know, non-disclosed location, you know, would be listening in on this, that an unreasonable boundary would be a girlfriend says, my boyfriend can't talk to any other women, that that would be unreasonable.
And a reasonable one would be, my boyfriend should not be going around looking at other naked women.
That's fine, but so like you guys also think like masturbation in general.
What do you mean by you guys?
Well like I've watched your video.
You said masturbation just in general is wrong.
I don't think that our community standard would agree with you.
I would agree that maybe I'm farther this way, but you're definitely nowhere near where the reason is.
No, but I like it.
There are definitely boundaries that are like pathological that are not okay.
And there are probably some that are okay.
But we are debating whether our sexual ethic is good or bad.
We're debating whether your sexual ethic is bad.
Okay.
Yeah, and I'm wondering where you're seeing these are.
If the only thing you have is that 20% of marriages have an issue with this, 20% marriages have issues with substances and et cetera.
Are those things bad?
You said it's a leading story.
I think problematic porn use is also bad.
You should go get help from that.
Yes, and divorce rates have not gone up since the proliferation of porn.
But the point is that porn is a prominent factor in divorce.
So is substance abuse.
So is alcohol.
I think substance abuse is bad.
So why are you saying porn is good?
No, no, wait, wait.
Because substance abuse, you're, you're, wait, wait, wait.
You're saying substance abuse is bad, therefore why isn't porn bad?
No, that's not what I said.
Hold on.
That is literally what you just said.
Why would substance abuse be bad?
That's the concept of why people get divorced, Destiny, is what we were speaking.
Yes.
No, no, but people don't get divorced because of substances.
They get divorced because of behaviors.
Substance abuse.
Well, and you're saying they get divorced because of porn.
Why not porn abuse?
Yeah, that's my question.
Problematic porn abuse.
If it's getting in the way of your life, it's bad.
But there are most of the people that consume porn, which is the majority of people, it's not getting in the way of their life.
It's not getting in the way of their life.
Because we can delineate, we can say, oh, when you drink this much alcohol, it makes you sleepy or giggly or fall down drunk or wrecks your liver.
Like we can talk about the different effects at the different levels and what they do and whether it makes sense for a wife to tolerate or a spouse to tolerate or not tolerate.
But when it comes to porn, I think it's very fair for a spouse to say, yeah, I'm not going to tolerate my spouse giving orgasm or giving that sexual desire to someone else.
My biggest problem with the view you guys are defending is that you lose any principled basis to say things like infidelity or even other, you can't even define what extreme sexual behavior is as long as it's consensual.
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
You can absolutely have all of these discussions.
Just because you say, I think that my partner can watch porn, you're saying you can't have any more sexual boundaries if you grant that?
Because I could explore your lives and find a million different things.
Do you think your partner should be allowed to eat?
Well, yeah, of course.
Should they be allowed to have dinner with a member of the opposite sex alone at a restaurant?
Maybe not.
Some people wouldn't be necessarily comfortable with that.
Just because you allow some things doesn't mean that you've eliminated every single sexuality.
No, this goes back to my previous argument and saying about what boundaries are reasonable or unreasonable.
But if sex is just another activity like other activities, then it becomes unreasonable to demand exclusivity for it.
Literally nobody here is saying that sex is just another activity.
You seem to have.
You seem to have.
And what is it?
Sure.
There are some activities that can serve a variety of different purposes.
For sex, it could be recreational or it could be an incredibly emotional, romantic, bond-building thing.
Much the same that we could imagine, as I just brought up, dinner could be whatever.
I've gone out to dinner with a ton of people, that it's whatever.
But dinner can also be an incredibly romantic personal event.
Some of these things even some people could set boundaries around, and everybody said that's fair.
If you say, oh, I went out to eat with like three or four friends last night, you know, Samantha was there.
Oh, that's cool.
That hits a lot differently than if you say, oh, I went out to eat last night with Samantha.
We went to Ruth's Chris.
We had like a $200 dinner and wine or night.
That doesn't feel fair.
That feels like cheating.
A lot of people would say that's not okay.
You've actually like cheated on your partner because you took another woman out on a date.
So I don't agree with this idea that just because you're saying sex can be used like romantically, that's the only way you can treat it.
And as soon as you've used it even a little bit on this recreational side, you've lost all ability to have romantic relationship because you wouldn't apply that same standard to literally any other activity in the world.
Because sex is not like any other activity in the world.
I didn't say it.
Wait, wait, what do you mean it's not like any other activity?
It isn't.
Sex is something that's unique because it has the ability to create new people.
It is designed to bring people together in a close, intimate bond that no other natural activity is created for.
And because it has those propensities, we have moral norms around it.
And that in order to have prostitution and pornography, you have to say, well, those moral norms are just what puritanical people think.
Because it's not intrinsic to the activity that you see.
Sex can be utilized for other things.
For instance, when you masturbate, you're not procreating.
And masturbation is about as natural as it gets.
Plenty of people learn to touch themselves at incredibly early ages.
It's like a natural part of human development.
But it is not natural, the state that we're in now, where people can masturbate to a nearly an unending supply of goalposts.
I would like to finish, please.
Okay, it's not relevant to what I just said, but it absolutely is relevant because we're talking about whether this is bad for society.
No, we're not.
We were talking about if it was natural.
Whether what's natural.
You're saying that sex is made for procreation and blah, blah, blah.
First of all, ignore the fact that a designed process.
We could fight over that, but that's going to get into religion.
But I'm telling you that there are forms of natural sexual exploration, like masturbation, as you're growing up, that obviously don't produce children and aren't designed for that.
I didn't say sex is for procreation.
That's not my answer to the question, what sex is for.
But I'm getting back that even if someone didn't have a complete answer to what sex is for, they wouldn't say, oh, well, it's like dinner.
It's like other activities where there's just a multiplicity of meanings.
There's no correct meaning to it.
People have a lot of different meanings to it.
I think a lot of people would end up rejecting that.
Wait, rejected how?
When casual sex is so prevalent, what do you mean?
A lot of people would reject that.
A lot of people will reject that when you talk about what is it, what is it for, like especially when you're in the context of a relationship.
Well, yeah, in a context of a relationship, it changes, of course.
And the biggest, the most telling thing here, in my opinion, is all the social data shows, the vast majority of it shows, that these problems arise when there is, no, when there is a moral issue with it, right?
Because alcohol, like you said, there is a link.
They have linked the amount you drink with the probability of it leading to problems.
With porn, there is no link.
There's no study that can link the amount you watch with having problems with it in your social life and even there are studies done by Nicole Prouse, who is a pro-porn advocate in 2013 that shows there's lesser reactivity in the brain to people who frequently use porn to be able to have attachment to spouses or significant others.
Kuhn et al. in 2014 and other further studies in 2015 were the first to use magnetic resonal imagery to show the actual changes that take place in the brain when people frequently use pornography.
It changes the brain and raises the dopamine ceiling so that in order to receive sexual arousal, you need more and more extreme and even violent forms of pornography in order to reach that.
That's why you have things that now people are seeking out, not just sex, they're seeking out incest pornography, they're seeking out bestiality, they're seeking out group sex, rape play, and that is bad when society falls more into that.
The whole point of that Nicole Proud study, which I have here, is it's the exact opposite of what you'd expect to see going on in the brain of someone with an addiction.
This is her words.
The findings suggest self-proclaimed porn addicts don't quite have the same relationship with porn as someone that's substance like with substance addiction.
So yeah, she has done a lot of work.
I'm a big fan of her that shows that it's not a real addiction.
And a lot of it, she was also in this big study that found, this is the quote, moral incongruity around pornography use is consistently the best predictor of the belief that one is experiencing pornography related problems or dysregulation.
It seems to be unlike alcohol, unlike substances, that it has a lot to do with how you feel about it.
And I can just give you anecdotal experience from talking to so many people on my OnlyFans.
My European fans, those cultures where it's not like sex isn't seen as such a terrible thing, the way they interact with me is like, hey, how are you?
Can I get this video?
And they're like, okay, cool.
The people who have this moral incongruence, their behavior is super erratic.
They come, they go, then they delete everything, then they come back.
Sometimes they send you a Bible verse.
Like these people are really struggling.
But then there are people who consistently ask for more and more kinds of, frankly, bizarre.
So Nicole Krause talked about this study, I think it was in Croatia, where there's actually evidence that they do it in the beginning, and then they eventually, the study they've done showed that over time, they go back to the vanilla stuff.
And she was attributing it more to people being like, oh, this is kind of weird.
Like, let me click on this.
And then over time, being like, okay, I'm over it.
It's like kind of like a shock factor thing.
That's what she found.
And that's what she talked about.
And I would say there was a 2016 study by Wright et al. that did a meta-analysis.
The other thing I'm concerned about is it raises the dopamine ceiling.
And this was a study that was done across 22 countries showing an increase in the level of aggression in men who view pornography versus those who don't.
And I think that makes sense when you look at the most popular forms of pornography involving things like domination, subjugation of women, using verbal, you know, verbal abuse, gagging, asphyxiation, and a lot of other things.
Like I said earlier, about the increase in things like incest, an incest role play.
Real quick, just on two questions.
So first of all, when you say an MRI shows changes in the brain responding to dopamine levels of people that continue to use porn, this is true of probably literally every single stimulating activity, right?
Yeah.
Right.
Like if you, okay, so that's not unique to porn.
That would be the same in playing cars.
That'd be the same in eating potato chips.
That'd be the same in playing video games.
It'd be the same in watching movies or TikToks or whatever.
So I don't know what that's supposed to be.
Secondly, just so I can understand this too, It's in the relation of what you find to be sexually arousing, that people who continue to use porn and use porn more frequently need more and more varied or disturbing or intense pornography.
They have a higher threshold.
In the same way that an alcoholic needs more potent alcohol to feel a buzz than when they first started drinking.
Okay, those two things are completely dissimilar.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, hold on.
I'm sorry.
Real quick.
Okay, I hear this brought up so many times, and I'm curious if there's an actual number on this.
I've heard this said over and over and over and over and over again.
People who consume porn need to dramatically increase the extremeness of the porn they're consuming.
What is the percentage of those people that that happens with?
Because I've heard that said over and over again.
Is that actually true?
Or is that just like something we say when we take a look?
Well, I think the proliferation of, I mean, even what we were talking about.
Nope, that's not an answer.
I'm asking.
It is an answer, even if you don't like it.
The fact that when you look at Pornhub's most searched terms over the past 10 years and see that it's extreme things, which by the way, your view can't tell me what's extreme or not.
Okay, the 2022, the searches that define 22 were reality, gender, group sex, outdoor positions, feet, and femme.
These are our top seven types of searches.
Do you think it's extreme people?
Pornhub publications.
Do you think it's extremely important?
That's not the complete search list.
Those are highlights that were put up there.
You have to scroll down more to get the plan.
No, no, you said the top.
I'm asking what are the top ones.
Those were the highlights that they put in that graphic.
I know the page you're looking at.
Oh, so you're saying that if I go to look for the most common searches, it's not those?
Yeah.
Oh, okay.
Teen and stepmom or step sibling.
Okay, I'm sorry.
You're right.
So the most search terms were hentai, Japanese, oh no.
MILF, which is the opposite of teen, lesbian.
Teen is no, yeah, teen mysteriously disappeared after 2020 when at the same time Pornhub was indicted, not indicted, when Pornhub was being investigated for having child sexual assault materials and credit card companies were refusing to work with them.
If you go back and look at it from 2012 to 2019, teen is one of the most common categories searched for.
And it mysteriously disappears though after they have trouble with these credit cards.
Wait, wait, wait.
Does it mysteriously disappear, or do they just eliminate the category to try to stay on the safe side of, like, all of the...
Well, now they've realized...
I don't know what they've done, but they have seemed to have kept certain terms from being searched for, but other people go and search for them.
And then, of course, there's other sites beyond Pornhub.
Sure, there are.
Okay, but I think we would consider this a claim.
But you know, this is like a form of like regulation working, right?
If we think that like people searching for teen pornography.
And even the ones you've put there, would you say hentai is a more extreme version of pornography?
It depends on what you're looking for.
Would you say it's more extreme?
Do you think it's more extreme to be aroused by watching someone be penetrated by tentacles?
Well, not all hentai porn is tentacle porn.
There's lots of different types of hentai.
But that's a common element of it.
I don't know if that's true or not.
Wait, Jasmine.
I was looking back, wait, wait, wait.
I was talking about this question.
Nobody answered this.
I want to know, do we know, because I've heard this said over and over and over again, that people that start searching for pornography are going to gravitate towards more extreme versions.
I'm curious, what are the percentage of people that start on the pornography road that end up at work?
Jasmine was using anecdotal examples of her corporate.
Okay, gotcha.
I guess you can go on from that.
I just want to be clear then that this is repeated over and over again.
We had no number on that.
There's no data.
That's just something they've said over and over again.
I literally just told you what people tend to search for on the internet.
And it's not like loving couple has sex.
Well, and child sexual assault material is proliferating.
Yeah, we're talking about it.
I just had a very clear question.
I was curious, how many people start with vanilla porn and move on?
I'm looking for a number between 100%.
Probably 100% because they start when they're 11 years old and they probably see boobs, naked people, sex, and then it quickly moves on from there based on these common search terms you see what's on there.
So 100% of people move away from hornboard.
No, I'm sure not 100%.
I'm sure some 11-year-old finds hentai and then they're really in for bad shit.
Because of the work I do in speaking with young women, and the New York Times and others have done investigative reports on this, what young girls are reporting about sexual encounters that they have with other young boys and the extreme and often very disrespectful things that the young boys expect the young girls to do because of the pornography that they're exposed to on the internet.
So I think it's living in unreality for you both to sit there and say, well, hold on, wait, let me finish.
Please let me finish.
I think it's living in unreality for you both to sit there and say, porn is harmless.
It's great.
Yeah, there's some bad stuff, but it has nothing to do with porn and everything's fine.
When the reality is of your average young girl and your average young guy today, boy today, who's looking at porn on the internet, is being exposed to rape porn, is being exposed to sexual assault porn, is being exposed to child sexual assault material.
And a lot of young girls are reporting.
And yes, we don't have the exact same thing.
It's not just the niche.
It's hard to know this.
It's not just the niche.
In 2021, Bella Delphine, one of the most- No, no, no, wait.
She just said a whole thing.
Did we get the response to our influence?
Well, the last thing I was just going to say is these young girls.
She's doing kidnap roleplay.
It's pretty common.
I mean, thank you.
That's a good point.
I mean, even this is a very prominent person.
Dressed as a child.
A very prominent porn creator who's doing what Trent just said.
But these young girls are reporting that they are being asked to do very degrading, demeaning things that are scary for them.
It's even on this podcast.
I was at this point.
Okay, well, you're just repeating your point.
You explain how the guy wants to do these aggressive, violent things with her and she's uncomfortable.
This is pervasive.
And you can pretend it's not happening, but it is.
That's fine.
Okay, but we can argue that there might be negative sexual behaviors that might be being picked up from porn, which is fine.
If you've got numbers on that, I'd be interested.
I don't think that's happening, Destiny.
I do think it's happening, but we don't.
I'm glad we can agree that that's a good idea.
But the problem is a lot of women push for it too.
So it's hard to get it.
It doesn't matter who pushes for it.
It has led to that is the problem.
But I don't know if it's led to it, though, right?
There could be these desires that also weren't being expressed or being expressed in other ways before.
For instance, things like, I can tell you what I'm saying.
You don't have to say you're saying.
I can just tell you what I'm saying, right?
Things like, for instance, sexual behavior at the workplace is inappropriate towards women.
That's something that's been a pastime in workplaces for a long time.
Men treating women in sexually aggressive ways at workplaces that had nothing to do with pornography.
Things like spousal rape or marital rape.
These are things that have existed for a long time that weren't encouraged by or made for pornography.
If you want to play history anecdotes, you can look at all of the conquests of cities where there's sacks.
Lastly, is it your argument that the 11-year-old who's exposed to pornography and finds themselves suddenly looking at sexually, very explicit sexual assault material, pornography, that when they then may try to act out aspects of it with a girlfriend their first time in real life, that that's a result not of the porn, but the sexuality of the pressure is a practical thing.
I don't think this is happening.
I don't think that's a good question.
I don't think an 11-year-old's first porn video is like Bukake Throat Fucker 69.
That's not what I said.
How do you know that?
I said that the 11-year-old who's exposed to porn and gets hooked and starts to look for more and runs into, because it's everywhere, sexual assault material type porn, torture type porn, maybe child sexual assault material porn, that that kid, then if they act out some element of that in a real life sexual relationship with a young girl, your argument is that, well, they would have done that anyways, even without the porn.
No, my argument is if you think that's happening, because I am 34 and I've grown up hearing all the same arguments from Jack Thompson about video games, that you think a boy's gonna play a game and take a chainsaw to a guy's face and saw it open and he's not gonna go and bully his friends or kill somebody at school?
You don't think these schools, I've heard all these immigrants.
If you think it's happening, that's fine.
You give me a plausible scenario where it could show it on the data.
Then show it on the internet.
How many 11-year-olds are choking their 12-year-old girlfriends?
I call it the New York Times a report on this.
Okay, and the New York Times report is going to say that this percentage of 11-year-old students are choking their girlfriend.
No, and also, I don't think we need to come here and say we know the exact, we probably don't know.
No, no, no, you need to present an argument.
You're presenting a positive argument.
You're saying that 11-year-old boys, hold on, let me restate your argument.
You're saying 11-year-old boys are finding extreme porn and they're acting that with their girlfriends.
No, if that's happening, that's pretty bad.
Do you have any evidence to say that?
Do you think they're not acting it out with their girlfriend?
Is it pretty bad?
Is it pretty bad if somebody views them?
Is that bad?
I don't know the answer to that.
That's something you would research.
It's okay for an 11-year-old boy to suddenly start looking at rape.
Probably not.
Do you think it's okay for an 11-year-old boy to hear his parents having sex?
Do you think it's okay for an 11-year-old boy to see somebody naked at a beach?
Do you think those are the same?
No, no, no, answer that.
Answer that.
Answer those questions.
Do you think it's okay for a girl?
I'm not trying to use them as comparisons.
Do you think that an 11-year-old boy, I didn't say they were the same?
That's why it's a comparison.
If it's a comparison, it wouldn't be two different things.
That'd be comparing.
It would just be me saying the same thing twice.
They're not a meaningful comparison because.
Well, let's find out if it's a meaningful comparison.
That's why I'm asking you.
Can you tell me, is it appropriate for an 11-year-old boy to hear his parents having sex?
No.
I think that's inappropriate, but it is dramatically more scarring to walk in and see a rape happen.
Scarring.
Okay.
Oh, okay.
And problematic.
Then doing a study.
And then they're consuming.
So there's 11-year-olds that are traumatized.
That's masturbation.
No, it should be easy to do.
So it's overwhelmingly women that are seeking out this kind of stuff.
So if there's a woman who's 13, 14.
I was one of these, and I was like, ooh, choking kind of hot.
And then when I got a boyfriend, I was like, I want to try choking.
And we both agree that this is what we want to do.
How is that harmful?
Are you saying that it's not bad for a 13-year-old girl to seek out choking porn?
No, I don't think it's bad.
I think if that's what you're saying, so you think maybe it's a good idea.
And then I also want to say, where is this harm?
Do you think, repeat this, it's not bad for a 13-year-old girl to seek out porn where women are choked as part of the children?
I don't think it's wrong for girls when they're exploring their sexuality and they do that through porn if they like being dominated.
Like I'm one of these girls, to see that represented.
It would be wrong for an adult to show a 13-year-old girl that.
Yes, but that's different.
It's different because there's an imbalance thing.
You're not supposed to show children this.
But if a child, like if I went out to the children, how about a 16-year-old boyfriend shows a tour?
If he's like, hey, are you into this?
I don't think that's bad either.
Wait, wait, 16-year-old boyfriend or a 16-year-old girlfriend or 16-year-old or a 13-year-old girlfriend?
Yeah, that's the 13-year-old girl.
Oh, well, that's different.
It's three years.
Three years typically.
If it's within the before it becomes statutory rape when they're not even supposed to be having sex, if it's 16 and 13 in most states, they're not even supposed to be having sex.
They're 16 and 14.
I know that the Rome and Juliet lost.
Yeah, so 15 and 16 or 13 and 14, whatever you want to say.
If it's two people of the same age and they're just exploring what each other likes and there's consent and both people are comfortable with it and it turns them on, it's okay for them to explore.
Wait, now let's go back then.
So it sounds like what you're saying is, fine, 13, how about a 10-year-old girl is looking up this stuff?
I mean, that's really young, but I think that's still part of like normal exploration.
I wish, I agree, I wish this wasn't available.
Are children harmed when they see pornography?
Well, the research on that is kind of mixed.
I actually have a couple questions.
So your answer is, I don't know.
The answer is that there's research going in both ways.
It's not just me that I'm going to say.
So let me ask this.
So if the research goes both ways and we don't know, should it be a crime then to show children pornography?
Yeah, I think children, yes, but we're not talking about- But why?
Because you're saying we don't even know about it.
It's also a crime to give children alcohol.
Is alcohol bad?
And the other thing I wanted to point out can be very bad.
Here's why it's a crime to give children alcohol.
That children cannot consent to activities that are capable of gravely damaging them or even damaging them at all.
Like kids have to have their parents sign them up for sports teams.
They can't just sign up on their own.
So it seems like then that we'd have to agree that if porn doesn't damage kids, then they don't need parents.
They don't need consent and they don't need a law to protect them, right?
If it doesn't damage them.
I think that it's really mixed on if it damages or doesn't.
So to err on the safe side with children, I'm okay with I wish we could keep it away from children, but we can't.
Can I okay, let me know?
So by that logic then, you know, people, there's, you know, differing opinions about whether childhood football damages children too much or not.
So by that logic, we should treat childhood football teams as being as wrong and necessary to outlaw as showing porn to children.
Okay, wait, here's a question.
Which doesn't make any sense.
What damages the child?
Yes, that's my question.
No, that's my question to you now.
Well, you're the ones promoting sex work and pornography.
Sure.
So I'm asking where you draw the line, because you're saying that it's clearly not, you're saying that porn is clearly overlooked, despite the fact that you presented absolutely zero data to support that point.
So you're giving that a child being exposed to pornography when they're 11 or 12 or 13 or whatever are having all these negative outcomes.
I don't think you provided a single stat for any of that or a single point for any of that other than it feels wrong.
I mean, which is fine.
It can feel wrong.
I did provide that.
I mentioned the 2016 Wright et al. study with the 22 countries, the meta, sorry, 22 study of children.
That's founded of all people.
It's talking about children, young people, and rise of aggression and use of pornography.
That's 22 studies across seven countries.
There are other studies that we can put forward.
Okay, so there's right there.
But even beyond the studies, it's just an obvious thing.
I would like to finish, and then I would love to hear your response.
It just seems obvious to me that if a 12-year-old boy has access to Pornhub and can freely search it, it won't take him long to find what we consider extreme pornography.
And if he finds extreme pornography, what are those outcomes?
So you talked about sexual aggression.
There's a meta-analysis from the 1970s to 2020, and it shows that some show that there is, some show that there's not, but the studies that were done over a longer period, the link was weakened.
It's also been found the studies that employed higher level of best practices tended to provide less evidence of a potential.
The biggest predictors for sexual aggression, number one, alcohol.
So again, because alcohol seems to be actually showing us more conclusive harm in all of these respects.
Is alcohol harmful?
Is it there's a meta?
I mean, in excess, it is, absolutely.
There's a meta-analysis that Trent and I have both referenced that say that porn is connected to aggression, including young people.
But you're right, and that's why...
And that's why, for example, with alcohol, what we do is we have very stringent barriers to make sure to try to keep minors away from alcohol, even though they do that.
So for example, would you agree we ought to have very stringent barriers to keep children away from pornography?
For example, all pornographic websites should require age verification.
I think that the problem is, is that practically speaking, the ones that are going to implement that are going to be the bigger ones, but it's the internet.
you can't control the internet.
So what's gonna happen is those sketchy sites in Russia are gonna be- Why don't we just have a rule that all pornographic websites have to have a triple X domain.
And then we can put them in one area that requires age verification.
How about that?
If there was a way that we could actually make it so that you had to verify your age to be on these, then that it wouldn't lead to just moving people over to sketchier places where they can still access, because I don't know if you know the internet's pretty easy to find like crazy shit.
And even if you go, especially the sketches.
What's worse on the sketchier stuff?
What do you mean what's worse?
You're saying you're worried that if you use age verification to keep a kid off Pornhub, he'll go to a sketchier.
So the sketchier stuff, so for instance, places like Pornhub right now, they have gotten way stricter with the type of content you can put out.
You can't put out, like if you search rape on Pornhub, nothing comes up.
But if you go to like some of these sketchier ones, they do come up.
So your issue is more.
Can you do step-sibling incest?
Yeah, and I don't think that's necessarily like, okay, if someone views step-sibling incest, what are they doing?
What are they doing with that?
That's so harmful to you.
Is step-sibling incest bad?
Step-sibling.
Watching step-sibling incest?
No, I'm just saying is the act of step-sibling incest bad.
I wouldn't say it's 100% bad.
And I want to know if you're saying it's bad.
Why?
Where are the outcomes?
Because I'm looking at- Because family members shouldn't have sex with each other.
That's the same thing.
I'm looking at outcomes here.
So I'm saying if people are watching this more aggressively.
Because if you have two.
Where is that?
Where is that?
Come on.
I don't need a study to know that I shouldn't have sex with my sister, whether she's by law or blood or brother.
Is watching it increasing step-sibling incest?
That's my question.
Is watching this stuff increasing it happening?
Are people having more incest now in real life or are they just watching it?
Desensitizes one to it.
Yeah.
So, but is that actually leading?
Because the same thing happens with violent porn, but there's a lot of studies that show it can kind of have a cathartic effect and that sexual crime's actually decreasing people watching.
So, my question is.
In the meta-analysis of 22 studies that show that increased use in porn increases aggressive.
Okay, and this is a meta in aggression even more that shows that some of them do, some of them don't, but the ones that had best practices show a weakened link.
So, I get a set of people.
What best practices?
Best practices means like having the peer review, better control group, more people.
Talk about studies, not the point.
Yeah, I'm talking about studies.
So, the studies that have best practices employed, that's what this meta-analysis from 1970 to 2020 found showed that that link is actually weakened.
And then, if you look at actual crimes happening, I'm surprised by it.
You can't make a moral decision without saying, Well, let's see what these psychological studies say, even though we're in the midst of a replication crisis.
Let me finish.
We're in the midst of a replication crisis where many sociological studies, in some instances, 70 or 80 percent, can't be replicated.
So, we don't know if the study's conditions are accurate.
We can't just go with the very basic element of, hey, getting an erection at watching fake rape.
That's probably a bad scenario.
That's probably bad if people do that.
Well, here's the thing: you're talking about incest, right?
If we're saying that's also rape, people are watching step-sibling, step-sister stuff.
It's not making them more likely to do it.
We have no evidence, it's not leading to greater aggression in society.
It's not leading to anything if the harm is just minimized to them seeing it and being aroused by it.
Is that inherently bad?
And if so, why?
Can I get something clear?
You're okay with people being aroused and ejaculating over rape porn.
You're okay with that.
As long as it's something that if it's not real and if it's consensual actors, then you're okay with someone getting aroused and ejaculating over incest porn.
Yeah.
As long as you be okay with someone ejaculating and being aroused over child sexual assault material, provided it wasn't a real child, it was a simulation.
If it, and same thing, if it was a simulation, I would look at what the consequences are.
If it's leading, especially when some of them show it's leading to less actual harm to children, or if it's leading to less sexual aggression in person, if it's leading to less essays, which a lot of studies show, then I think, yes.
I think if you're just getting aroused by it, there's no harm being done.
What about a child being raped, but it's a simulation, and it's okay for someone to ejaculate over that in your mind?
I would say that if that, if okay, here's the thing: some people have that proclivity, and if watching it when there's no real child, if it's AI, and that prevents somebody from actually acting this out, that's a cathartic evidence that prevents it.
There's evidence that watching that has a cathartic effect on actual essays.
Here's the difference.
Okay, so it sounds like you're saying, Well, how can we really know that people desire something virtually that they don't also, we have no idea if they really want it in real life if it primes them for that?
That's not what I'm saying.
Well, what you're saying is that they might be confined to the virtual, and so they don't have the desire to do it in the middle of the day.
I'm saying all the evidence that we have shows that it either is confined to the virtual or is actually preventing.
At least when it comes to sexual aggression, yes, I have three.
Is it true that one of the main reasons, there's different reasons women quit OnlyFans, right?
Is one of the main reasons that they find they make more money doing escorting?
I have no idea.
I don't know.
I've never heard of anyone I know, anyone I know has never quit to do escorting.
No.
Do any people who do OnlyFans make supplementary income from escorting?
Some do.
It's against the rules of OnlyFans if they found out you get kicked off.
Or other cam sites.
I'm sure they do.
So do you think then in those cases that it's plausible someone begins on a cam site, they're excited by this virtually, and then they want to take it to the next level, and that's how that happens.
What do you mean, what happens?
They're now sexually assaulting them?
No, they're having a physical active intercourse with this person they first experienced on cams.
Yeah, what does that have to do, though, with having higher levels?
What I'm saying then is that if we see in these circumstances where someone begins, they're aroused by virtual contact with someone, and then it instincts, well, I want to take it to the next level.
That's going to really make me aroused and go and meet that cam girl in person.
Why wouldn't that apply also to virtual acts?
Because all the data shows that it doesn't.
Even people like Jordan Peterson have talked about how there seems to be a cathartic effect from watching it that actually leads to less of this happening in real life.
And I have some studies that show that.
You have no evidence saying that people watching this leads to more of it.
In fact, there's evidence that's leaning in the other direction.
There's many cases.
You wanted that something there.
Yeah, these arguments are completely and totally disconnected.
The idea that if somebody gets into some type of work, they might continue on down that type of work doesn't at all feed into like, well, isn't it obvious then if somebody watches porn?
Like, that's like saying, like, if you start drinking at all, you're going to become an alcoholic.
And it's like, why would you say that?
Well, isn't it likely that somebody that works as a bar back might become a bartender someday?
So why wouldn't like that argument is no connection whatsoever.
There are many cases of people that are ultimately caught for the use of child sexual assault material.
And one of the things that gets them extra penalties is that they were actively seeking to act out the fantasy that they were playing and the attacks that they were doing against these children in their mind on real-life children.
They had difficulty accessing real-life children.
Yeah.
And I think it's a very much living in unreality argument that I think you have no evidence that it's actually increasing that to say that people can live this whole life in their minds, that they're acting out in their bodies through ejaculation, and that's not going to affect anything that they do in the real world.
But yet that seems to be the case with movies and video games, where a kid can sit in front of a computer and play 12 hours of violent video games a day and blow and behold, he doesn't go in the real world and kill them.
I think training yourself and actively sexually arousing yourself and ejaculating over these activities.
I don't think there's a hype arousal that happens.
I agree with a mental arousal that happens when you're out there killing people and video games screaming like that.
Child sexual abuse has gone down since the proliferation of the past.
Child sexual abuse has not gone down.
A study from the University of New Hampshire that decline of 30% or more in substitutional.
Is this reported child sexual abuse, Jasmine?
Yes, but so where is your evidence then that it's just unreported now, but it's going up because people are watching.
Where is that evidence?
We have insane rates of child sexual abuse in this country.
And it's gone up.
And we have the proliferation of porn.
Well, it's in conjunction with the proliferation abuse.
Then it should go up.
If porn being introduced to society has made this worse, then where is that at least?
It's not just porn.
It's also, we haven't talked about this very much.
It's also prostitution.
You want data?
I'll give you data.
Look up Cho et al., CHO, a 2013 study covering 150 different countries showing an increase in human trafficking when prostitution is legalized.
Wait, none of us even disagree with this.
Yeah, that's but that's sex work.
Why is sex work bad?
Prostitution is sex work.
Sex work's bad because it leads to other bad things like human trafficking.
But that doesn't make the sex work itself bad.
Yes, it does.
Because you can use other things.
Hold on, wait, let's say it was the case that most of the alcohol we drank in the United States came from the cartel.
Would that make alcohol bad?
No, it would make it bad if using alcohol also fueled some other extremely dangerous, violent form.
That's what I just said.
Let's say that hypothetically opium was grown in the fields of Afghanistan and that was a huge export for them.
Does that make it bad to consume all products, all medical products related to painkillers?
No, I'm not talking about remote cooperation with evil.
What I am saying is that if you have different policies when it comes to something like prostitution, for example, if you have a policy where you legalize it and so it's legal to both buy and sell sexual services like you say you have in Germany or other countries where that's allowed, you have an increase in human trafficking.
But if you have other countries.
Wait, but the increase in human trafficking isn't necessary for the sex work.
It's just a byproduct of the process.
Yes, it is, and I will explain.
Yes, it is, and I will explain why.
Because when you legalize prostitution, and let's say human trafficking goes up or down, there's going to be two different things that happen here.
There's going to be the scale effect and the substitution effect.
So the substitution effect would be, oh, you would think if prostitution is legalized, human trafficking will go down because you have legal prostitutes now.
They substitute for the illegal prostitutes.
And the hope would be it would go down because of this substitution.
I'm sorry, wait, what is the substitution effect?
There's the question of the relationship between human trafficking.
Wait, I'm just curious, what is the substitution effect?
The substitution effect is that human trafficking would go down, illegal prostitution goes down because it's substituted with legal prostitutes.
You have sex with a legal prostitute instead of an illegal one.
That's the substitution effect.
Okay, go ahead.
That would drive the number down.
The other problem, though, is the scale effect.
That when you make it legal, there is now a massive increase in demand for this, and there's not enough prostitutes in order to satisfy the demand.
So trafficking goes up in order to meet that demand.
So the Cho et al. study 2013, 150 countries, including longitudinal, to show Germany before and after, so it's not correlative, shows that the scale effect always dominates the substitution effect.
So when I look at that, I say, oh, legalizing prostitution this way, that seems really bad.
Maybe we should do something else like the Nordic model, where you don't criminalize women for selling sex, but you criminalize men for buying it, and that really isn't.
Okay, so then back to my original question that.
Wait, wait, before we jump into a whole different thing.
Okay, so back to my other question.
If for alcohol then, if it was the case that we just, every time we buy more alcohol, it seems like, you know, in either cartels or gangs or whatever are the ones producing it, would you then say that we ought to outlaw alcohol?
Because it seems like every time we increase our purchasing of it, it always comes from, it seems to come from unethical sources.
We should outlaw alcohol if there are more social ills than social benefits.
No one is talking about social ills or benefits.
Yes, that is always the case that you make.
When you said that there is a substitution.
Can I finish?
Can I finish?
Hold on.
You just talked for like 30 minutes.
You want to answer a simple question.
I did answer, and you're interrupting me.
I said that if there is, when you have social benefit, when you choose to outlaw something, you have social benefits and social ills that you have to weigh involved.
Alcohol provides social benefits, and there are also social ills that are not.
I'm only talking about the substitution and the scale effect.
Those are the only two.
I don't know why we're bringing in this whole other thing now.
You bring up alcohol.
Destiny, what's the question that you're talking about?
Mike, he said that there is a substitution effect where when you legalize something, you bring in legal prostitutes instead of a consumption of illegal prostitutes.
However, the scale effect, due to the increase in the overall consumption of this particular good or service, leads to more people being brought in and sex trafficked.
So the fact that you're trying to substitute legal for illegal people doesn't matter because even if the percentage of illegal consumption decreases, the overall per capita increases, which causes an increase in the illegal amount of prostitutes being used.
So therefore increases sex trafficking.
So my question was, well, let's say if we take something like alcohol or any other good or service you can buy, if it was the case that the mass scale consumption of this necessarily means that it's being consumed from countries that are engaged in slave shops or drug trade or cartels or whatever, would you like to make it a matter of time?
No, it's not a correct analogy.
You'd have to show me an example where you have a legal and an illegal version of the same product in the market where it's being purchased, and it drives the illegal version of the product up.
Yeah, you're using it, no, you're using it, but it's too disanalogous to even make the point that you're trying to do.
And also, let's say that's the same thing.
Wait, hold on.
And it's not disanalogous.
I'm saying, let's say there is a drug.
This drug is something that a bunch of people around the United States smoke or drink or whatever.
But let's say that it was a case, okay, well, let's legalize it, but then when we legalize it, there's such a demand for it that now, like, all the cartels in Mexico are making it.
But would you say we shouldn't legalize it because of that reason?
Yeah, if it leads to a greater net increase in substance abuse to harm society, then we might want to outlaw that.
I'm not even talking about substance abuse.
I'm just talking about an increase in the people selling it being bad people because we have such a higher demand for it.
Now the supply is coming from like bad people.
But it's not selling.
That's the whole point here.
It's not about selling a product and the bad people.
It's about the fact that when prostitution is legalized, sex slavery goes up.
And the fact that we're even having this discussion about comparing people in sex slavery to products made in different countries very much shows the entire problem with the situation.
If you want me to sweatshops, then if you want to do that, touch on yourself.
Another problem with your analogy, Destiny, is that sex is good.
And sex is beautiful in the right context.
And so to compare it to alcohol but restrict it just to prostitution, sex happening is also a problematic, because I mean alcohol you can use in the right context right, sex in the right context, in our position, is an amazing and a great thing.
What our point is is that in the context of sexual exploitation and commodification commodification that's when it becomes problematic and and and harmful and wrong.
And Jasmine, you were saying, well, for kids, there's no problem with kids looking at pornography necessarily, etc.
I said that it's not this.
I think having alcohol, violent video games, all of this can show.
Just because something has harm doesn't mean that now we need to get rid of it.
Right?
The second amendment, guns probably do a lot more harm than porn do.
Is anyone here want to banish the first amendment right?
People say mean things on the internet now because we have the first amendment, but that outweighs that.
So if you want to say something should be banned because of social ills, I need a lot of evidence.
We're talking about can't be so much about banner hold on, hold on Jasmine.
We're talking about is sex work good?
Is the question, is it porn and?
And you asked, well, what about?
You know kids looking at objectifying pornography on the internet or, you know, sexual assault porn.
That's not necessarily bad.
There are over a hundred studies that have revealed links between young people's exposure to objectifying content and their objectification of women or self-objectification.
Those exposed to objectifying portrayals are more tolerant of, or in agreement with, sexual harassment, adversarial sexual beliefs, rape myths, child sex abuse myths and interpersonal violence than participants without this exposure and experience greater body dissatisfaction, appearance anxiety and disordered eating.
So to say again to to argue that kids being exposed to porn or, for that matter, adults using porn is harmless, there's no negative effect to them, or the way they view other people is simply.
I didn't say there's no negative effect to them.
I'm saying the negative effects are not even that conclusive.
Adolescents and pornography, what are the negative effects of 20 years of research?
Since 2005, more than 65 empirical studies have appeared, with a peak of 11 articles in 2011.
The reviews have come to opposite conclusions, notably about the question of whether pornography is related to adolescent sexual attitudes and behavior.
So some find there is, some find there isn't.
The problem here is that if we just do evidence-based, I have a lot of studies that probably show the opposite.
Yeah, so we can just ask a basic question which I have been continually asking and did not get a straight answer from that.
You seem you're not committed to the idea that it's just bad.
It's bad when children 10, 11 years old, see porn.
If it is bad, like you say, there's some studies say, what is bad?
What does it?
What does it do to them?
You came close earlier.
You guys are saying well, they might not understand how sex ought to be or determine what's real or not real in it.
So would you agree that pornography has distortions of sexuality in it that could children like what I mean I, especially if you look at so In fact, like things like OnlyFans has made that problem better for just general society.
A lot of studies on OnlyFans show that it actually helps people understand sex.
People report feeling more educated.
They report improvements in their sex lives.
So sex education is good, right?
Like if I have a child, my point isn't going to be like porn bed.
It's going to be like, hey, look, this is not how sex always is, right?
And now there's so many different kinds of porn out there that show different kinds of sex.
Is there some kind of consensual sex that people should never do?
Like, can you give me an example?
Well, I'm sorry, is there some kind of sexual behavior?
I will give you an example.
I'm curious to see how your guys' ethics would apply to this because I think that this view of sex that is grounded in pleasure, even if it's grounded in consent, you're going to have problems.
I'll give you an example.
So a month ago, Peter Singer, one of the most famous philosophers in the world, shared an article on Twitter from the Journal of Controversial Ideas.
And he said, this is really interesting.
And it was a defense of bestiality.
And it was an interesting defense of it because I think it goes through many of the common arguments that are made against bestiality and shows why a lot of them don't work.
You know, for example, well, I guess, I mean, I could ask you, I'm sure I know what your reason would be, but it seems like, okay, I'll put it this way.
All right.
I think what you might say is that obviously bestiality is wrong because in order for sex to be moral, there has to be consent and animals can't consent.
Yeah.
Okay.
That would be my view.
I don't think that that's a good argument because we eat animals.
Number one.
Yeah, that's a good.
We eat animals without their consent.
Normally would you say to do a scientific experiment on somebody, you need their consent, right?
You're a lawyer.
Yeah, you need their consent, but there's certain things at least you can't do even with their consent now.
Right, but to do any scientific experiment, you need the patient's consent.
Yes.
But we do scientific experiments on animals all the time without consent.
And I'll give you one more example.
So let's say like police canine units.
I gave the martial arts example earlier that if I do martial arts with somebody without consent, that's assault.
They need to be okay with me punching them in the head.
So police officers train canine units and they assault them.
They fight them.
They teach them how to subdue a suspect.
They basically get involved in fighting with a dog and the dog can't consent to that, but we don't consider that animal abuse.
So if it's okay for cops to rough up a dog to teach them how to subdue a suspect, why wouldn't it be okay for someone on OnlyFans to let their clients see their dog lick peanut butter out of their vagina?
So this is different.
We probably have different views on this.
I don't think that that's okay.
I don't think the way we treat animals is okay.
I would disagree with, I don't think we should be testing on animals the way that we are.
We treat them as completely non-human.
I don't think that's necessarily intellectually consistent.
Are you vegan?
I'm not vegan, but I'm an asshole for that.
Okay.
Yeah.
I should be aware of that.
But no, but of all the ways we could treat animals, of eating them, doing experiments on them, making them do hard agricultural work, do you think that the least violent way to treat them would be things like letting them eat peanut butter off somebody's penis?
I think some of the experiments that they do on animals, especially when it comes to like mental health, where they like purposely put monkeys and scare them and do all this, I think, yeah, if you just fucked a monkey, it'd probably be better than if you did all that shit to a monkey so that you can so that you can gauge how.
Oh, how did we get to monkey fucking?
Because if sex is just for pleasure, animals like pleasure too.
And we're all animals.
We're a different species.
This view that undergirds prostitution and pornography can't coherently explain why it's wrong.
And I think that that's a problem.
I would just like to make a quick statement.
I'd just like to make the whatever podcast does not endorse bestiality.
I need to do a couple chats here and then we'll continue on with the conversation.
We have Dr. Clockwork.
A common reason of divorce is leaving the cap off of the toothpaste.
Is brushing your teeth now bad?
Correlation does not equal causation.
People have lots of reasons for divorce.
Usually more than blank.
Okay, Dr. Clockwork, thank you.
Appreciate it.
We have Devon Frame here coming up in just a sec.
Just waiting for it to pop up.
Hey, Devon Frame, thank you.
Human beings tend to twist and molest everything they dip their toes in.
You religious folks should know that well.
How do you propose we better build healthy, functional adults?
Hassar milker?
I have no idea what that means, but how do you propose we build we better build healthy functional adults?
I don't know if that's virtue really worth habitual predisposition to choose the good.
Okay.
I think you have to have a realistic assessment and you have to acknowledge the real biological forces that exist in people rather than trying to design systems around virtues that are of religion or other sorts of origination.
We've seen this fail over and over and over again and it has failed and it will never come back.
The idea that sex can just be confined to one marital thing is just something that even for most of human history hasn't gone well.
I think when people try to have relationships where sex is open and can be shared with lots of people, that's where we see failure.
Sure, but we see 50% of marriages fail that don't even have those issues.
So it seems like the better thing to do is to say there are different ways that you can engage with sex.
Here are the pros.
Here are the cons.
If you engage with it in this way, things like this can happen or things like this could happen.
And then if you engage with it this way, here are the good things or bad things.
I think the problem is everybody is so ideologically driven to attack one side or support another, they end up making absurd statements like, you know, everybody should be happy with this style of monogamous sexual relationship and marriage and anything else is wrong.
Or everybody should be, you know, in a polyamerse fucking 500 people and that's totally okay.
We'd say everybody deserves love that doesn't need to be satisfied by other people as sexual objects.
Yeah, that's fine.
And that sort of view has led to, you know, histories of marital rape and women not even like having organizations.
Sex has a particular design to it.
And we can pretend that it doesn't, but it does.
And that design tends towards intimacy and connectivity between two people.
And it could also create life.
And I think when we pretend that that's not the truth about sex and we say that sex is just whatever I want on my own terms provided there's consent, then we open the door to all of these things.
To your point, Jasmine, you're saying, well, there's all these studies that show pornography doesn't cause so many issues.
I have all these studies that show that they actually lead to objectification in real life and all these other problems.
When you look, though, at the data of people who aren't promiscuous or having multiple sex partners, that's when you see what are people doing in real life, people very harmed and people experiencing more addiction, people experiencing more mental health issues.
Yeah, but wait, so then do you think that we should heavily discourage you to get away from that?
So again, to go to your moral view of saying that sex is whatever and let people do what they want to do.
So wait, wait, so all forms of sex then that aren't leading to like procreation and relationship building between husband and wife then in your eyes are basically like things that should be heavily socially discouraged.
So as an example, this is a New Zealand study.
No, no, wait, I'm not asking for a moral perspective.
Like for example, this is not a moral perspective.
This is data perspective.
No, no, what you just gave me, when you say sex is designed for something, that's a moral perspective.
It's a philosophical position, yes.
Which is not from the data-proof perspective.
But I'm not talking about the data.
I'm asking you morally.
You think that the only type of sex that should be encouraged in a society or should be allowed in society should be sex that is for the design of having children, basically.
I think it can include having children, but no, it's designed for marital life.
Sex makes children about waiting.
So for things like gay sex or lesbian sex, in your ideal society, are these things essentially not allowed?
Or heavily discouraged?
I think that sex is designed for lifelong love between two people, and it is designed to be life-giving.
Now, that doesn't mean every sexual act is life-giving or that everybody can give life through sex, but it's designed for that.
And I think that's the reason, one of the reasons.
Yeah, but can we engage in it outside of that?
So, for instance, are gay people having sex always committing a social sin in your eyes?
Is that always a passion?
Think that, yes.
I mean, I don't think that's a good idea.
Do you think that all forms, and then one more thing?
Do you think all forms of sodomy are also like social sins?
So, any oral sex, any anal sex, all of that is also like again.
I think if you want to talk about the Catholic teaching on this, and I'm not sure if you're not a person.
No, I'm asking for your teaching.
I'm an African Catholic teaching.
I'm a Catholic.
I mean, our view is not what's we're not debating whether the Catholic teaching on sexuality is true or not or good.
No, but the positions that you're giving to counter the sex work debate are ones that would necessarily include these.
But even on the alternative, if you don't hold this position, you can say this.
Well, but you haven't given those arguments.
Well, here's what I'm saying: the question of whether homosexual conduct or sodomy, whether it's between people of the same sex or people of the opposite sex, the question of is that disordered, you cannot answer that question unless you have answered a previous question, which is when is sex ordered?
Okay, so I put forward the view that I think the only way to explain why things like incest, bestiality, you know, infidelity, you know, gross promise of infidelity, other things ordered towards a very particular expression of love between a man and a woman.
But even if you didn't hold to that view, your view can't really say when sex is ordered, when it's properly ordered to a certain end.
All you can say is, well, you just got to make sure it's consensual.
But after that, it's not for him.
Yeah, I think that we can propose very simple things around as long as it's consensual, as long as it doesn't lead to obvious exploitations of certain people.
So, for instance, you probably shouldn't be able to have sex if you're kidney or something like that, right?
Destiny, the question today is: is sex work bad for society?
And we're talking about you're talking about and presenting a view of sex where provided there's consent between adults, everything's fine and dandy.
And you're saying, well, the data bears out from pornography that it's fine and dandy.
I'm saying, well, we have all this data that shows that it's not.
And you're saying, well, we then do that.
And the consensus is on my side.
And there's a lot of other data that we haven't even talked about yet that I think.
Wait, wait, before we get into that, let me just read the rest of the chats.
We have four chats, so let me just get through them and then we'll continue on.
Modest Acama.
Hey, thank you, man.
Brian, love the real debate format.
Thank you for setting it up.
Destiny, props for coming back multiple times.
Although I mainly disagree with you, it is nice to hear actual discussion from the other side rather than libs screeching.
Libs screeching be a good band name.
That would be a great band name.
Destiny, do you play in the instruments by chance?
Went to school for music, so yeah.
Okay, piano and saxophone.
Okay, there you go.
We have Fear Maddox.
Hey, thank you.
Hello, Brian.
I find this interesting.
I have friends who go out much, et cetera.
And I'm that only friend who doesn't because I have some level of self-respect.
Virgin.
My friends don't believe me.
Why do people think there aren't men who have self-respect?
Not entirely related to the conversation.
It's a virgin for him because it's like look down on in our culture to be a virgin or to pursue abstinence.
And I think, good for you.
I think that takes a real, a lot of virtue.
Good for you, Firmatix.
We have Kyle Whittington.
Hey, thank you.
Question for Destiny and Trans: At what point is consensus?
No, fuck.
Wait, hold on.
I'm sorry.
Can I respond to the last one?
No.
Hold on.
I'm sorry, real quick.
You want to go back to the last one?
Yeah.
If you want to be a virgin or if you want to be promiscuous, you should do some exploration of your own values.
And don't let people like Lila.
So I'm not allowed to encourage people to be able to do that.
You're not allowed to bully people because that's just as bullying as you're doing.
You are.
When you're like, she literally just answered.
The answer shouldn't be.
The answer shouldn't be.
The answer shouldn't be good for you for having self-respect.
But because that's the exact same answer that third wave feminist.
So Lila can't affirm the boundaries he set for himself.
I thought sex was all about melting down.
I'm changing my response.
What you should say is you should figure out what works best for you sexually.
You should do that exploration.
Because if that guy would have said, hey, I went out and I fucked 20 people and my friends all looked down on me.
Why don't they have self-respect?
You wouldn't be affirming his bound.
You'd be saying, oh, no.
I wouldn't affirm that.
I would have to say that.
Exactly.
So you weren't affirming anything healthy for him.
You just like that he was ideologically aligned.
That's the position of affirmation in this debate that someone pursuing abstinence is.
Affirm people because they've done the appropriate level of exploration to figure out what's right for them, not because they're just like a bad person.
It's more irrelevant.
The question isn't whether someone's whether they align with the idea.
You don't shame me for having the view that they're going to be able to get to the bottom.
I don't give people credit for exploration.
I give them credit for having the right answers.
Gotcha.
Having the right answers doesn't matter.
What matters is how you get there.
It's more.
You're assuming that he doesn't get there through some thoughtful process.
And I think that's unfair because you're not.
When your answer is because I have self-respect, that's the answer everybody gives to justify literally any stupid behavior.
I think that that's, I think that that's diminishing this young man.
And people talk about respect to justify good behavior, that they're disrespected or they have respect for themselves and they're not going to do things like allow themselves to be objectified.
Respect can be a very, respect can be a very good reason for something.
You can't just throw it down the drug.
That's great.
And the same argumentation has been used to shame women out of even exploring their own vagina until they're 30 years old.
Like you can use shitty arguments to justify anything.
That's what I'm saying.
It's the argument that matters, not like the correct outcome.
What triggered you or what?
Yeah, well, it's the idea that when people just give a position, they say, I do this, and my friends think that, well, why don't they have respect?
Then it doesn't sound like something they've truly explored.
It sounds like a position they've been either bullied or brainwashed into and nothing they've spent a good time.
That was the assumption.
I could be wrong.
I don't think, I think that it's unfair to assume that simply because someone is great, but you've already affirmed that if they would have given the exact opposite answer with the same argument, you would have disagreed with them.
So you don't even care about their argument, you just care about the position.
I think you're making the point, the point that I was trying to make, which is that in our society today, we applaud or accept sexual promiscuity.
That is not true.
I think largely speaking, especially younger people, it actually feels shameful for some of them.
If they are a virgin, they think, oh, what's wrong with me?
And I think that we've forgotten, we've lost a sense of respect and appreciation for people who are trying to live a virtuous life.
What point in U.S. history is everybody proud to be virgins?
I think today people...
No, no.
Are you saying like in the 80s people were proud to be virgins?
It's like, I'm 30 and I'm a virgin, I'm 25 and I'm a virgin.
No, it's not so much about even virgin as it is about virtue.
Is it about having self-restraint and choosing?
I'm not just going out having out having casual sex.
And so I think that's a good point of this young man that's making, and I think that that's a good thing.
All right, we have Kyle Whittington.
Question for Destiny and Trent.
At what point is consent irrelevant?
What would be some examples of actions that would be wrong regardless of consent and why?
Well, actually, I have an example of this.
Destiny said something that reminded me.
He talked about it.
He also said exploitation and you talked about selling kidneys.
That actually does have a little bit of a relation here.
It's not just, we've been talking a lot about behavior, like doing this, doing that.
But the big problem with prostitution pornography is the money.
Okay, it's money that leads to things like exploitation.
So for example, I would say it's good for somebody to donate plasma, donate bone marrow, donate kidneys.
That helps other people.
And it's good that they do that.
But when you start, but if you pay people for those things, for example, the United States is one of the few countries on earth that pays people for blood plasma.
Most other countries on earth, you can't be paid for blood plasma.
And we do it here.
And most blood plasma donation centers, they're at like, they're on the border, they're in the poor parts of town.
And when you pay people, so we have to ask, even though they're consenting to giving up parts of their body, is that exploitation that they're basically doing it because they're trying to get money?
If we have ethical problems about using money to get people to give up their body, their blood, their bone marrow, their kidneys, and that we're exploiting them because of the money that's involved, the same questions will be raised about people who will get money by giving their body in something like OnlyFans, and it's out there as a virtual image, and it's out there permanently.
The same ethical issues get raised about exploitation.
So who's exploiting me?
Who's exploiting you?
Yeah.
You just said that if you do sex.
The CEOs that make millions of dollars from OnlyFans and don't have to take their clothes off.
You could say that about any industry in America then.
Well, capitalism.
No, because most industries, you don't take the clothes off.
It's possible to take it.
So it's taking the clothes off.
It's the taking that close-up that you have issues.
It's the moral issue.
No, it's not the moral issue.
It's the commodification.
And it's possible to exploit oneself.
That's why you can't sell your own kidney.
Or you can't sell your own kids.
Thank you.
For Trent, Jasmine, and Legal Act.
Do you think it is a big brain move for a husband to let other men cream pie his wife or for him to suck men's penises?
Or is it more likely to cause a failed relationship?
We're not answering that.
Good question.
I think that one of the things you're talking about when you talk about the kidney thing is we've talked about consent a lot, but I think the topic that we're really getting towards is something called informed consent.
So somebody's ability to give consent to something.
For instance, a 14-year-old can theoretically consent to sexual activity with an adult, but they can't have an informed consent because they're only 14.
We would say, can they decide to have sex?
Sure, but do they understand all the ramifications?
No.
And that's where the issue between whether it's moral or immoral comes in.
I think when we look at things like kidney donations, I think that when we look at the informed consent, we're looking at, is there a group of people that have enough knowledge to make a decision?
And if they do, and there are no other mitigating factors, the question then becomes like, why would you prevent them from doing so?
So let's say, for instance, we say, okay, we do blood plasma donations, but we pay 50 bucks a service for, or, you know, like medical studies that we pay people for participation in.
If you do that, is it an unethical transaction?
Well, let's say you say yes, it is, and then we get rid of it.
Well, what have you, what are the social goods that you've achieved there?
We have less blood plasma donated.
People that are poor, that could have made money donating the plasma don't have it anymore.
Like what is the positive outcome that's happened there?
Because we can't just make ethical decisions based on what is the most positive outcome.
That's consequentialism or utilitarianism even.
That we could do all kinds of things to try to make the best positive outcome.
For example, you could maybe set up a system where orphaned children, a small subset of them, are used for child SA, and then that prevents children overall from being victims of child SA.
And so the overall rate goes down.
Would that be good because we had better consequences?
No, because we did something grossly evil to try to get the good consequences.
And it's similar, even if we have more of a shortage of things like kidneys, and we do need more kidneys and organs, it doesn't justify us doing things that are evil or exploitative, like taking organs from dead people without their consent, even though they're not alive anymore, to consent.
Or using money so that the people who end up doing it are the poor who are in a worse place to be exploited and want to go and be able to do something where they are greatly benefiting society but incurring massive harms because of this kind of exploitation.
Yeah, but then I think that's this doesn't have to be utility.
This could literally be, we could look at this as a virtue or deontologically.
We're not talking about sacrificing some group of people to save another group of people.
Or harming some group of people to save other people.
We're just talking about an individual.
Giving up your kidney harms you.
Well, I'm saying things like blood plasma.
The kidney stuff, obviously, moves a little bit.
You can donate blood plasma 100 times a year.
We don't have long-term studies what that does to people.
It may not be healthy.
Okay, but we do have long-term studies on what blue-collar labor does to people.
Sure.
Is that exploitative that we allow people to engage in backbreaking work that leads to negative health outcomes?
It might put them around asbestos.
It depends on the particular occupation.
So if we were to compare construction work to blood plasma donation, what arguments do you have to save construction work from the negative arguments you've constructed to destroy the exploitative effect of like donating?
Because construction work, and this goes back actually to sex work, because construction work is a service that creates a good.
It's a particular kind of service or skill that's offered.
With blood plasma, what we are doing is we are commodifying people.
And one of the overarching criticisms of pornography and prostitution, including from non-religious feminists from the past 40 years, is that prostitution and pornography are wrong precisely because this is not a service that is offered to people.
It is the purchasing of a commodity.
And a simple thought experiment shows.
Wait, wait, wait.
Wait, let me finish the thought experiment.
The simple thought experiment is that people have a choice between two streams that they want to pay for.
And let's say one is Jasmine's 5,000th stream, you know, special access, cool stuff I'm going to do.
And the other one is Megan from Nebraska, barely 18, my very first stream.
This one's going to be the far more popular one.
With real jobs, people value expertise and experience.
With commodities, like a car, you value that it doesn't have a lot of miles on it.
And people treat pornography and prostitution and the women involved more like cars than they do like service.
Would you say that that argument also applies to every single form of athletics?
No.
Because you value an athlete that has more experience and so they have a greater skill set.
What's the average age of like a female Olympic gymnast?
But they have tremendous skill as the point.
They have skill and experience.
But what is the average?
Isn't the average age like 14 years?
It's not just age.
The fact is that someone would rather prefer cam or porn or something with a girl who it's my first time, whereas a gymnast, if it's their first time doing the uneven bars, we don't prefer.
Only their money.
So now we've narrowed this all the way down to it's just the fact that it's the first time because commodification of bodies or people, like these are things that also happen in a wide variety, like somebody who's younger, somebody who's got less damage, especially when we talk about sports.
I feel like for athletics, this is going to apply.
I don't know how you can look at athletes and say they're not commodified under this lens.
They can be treated inhumanly.
People can be treated as commodities or inhumanly, but I'm saying that sex work, that's why I don't like that phrase.
It's not even work.
There's a whole host of other things that are involved to say that we should treat, especially prostitution, like a job.
To me, it seems insane.
What about acting?
What about acting?
Would you say like women actresses are also treated as commodities?
Because a woman actress might be hired.
Oh, she's only 22.
She's like, God, we can hire her to do this job instead of her.
They want her to be a good actor.
They want her to have skills.
They want her to have a skill.
I mean, if you do porn, they also want you to do whatever pornographic actions are going to do as well, right?
But Trent's point is up for the first, the girl who's doing the first time or selling her versatility or showing me on the street.
Yeah, but you're narrowing it on the story.
Is the most popular porn star in the world 18 years old?
That's just her first time?
No, that's not how it works.
I think the point here is sex is different than all of these things.
Sex has meaning.
And I think that he now just.
No, going back, though, here's the other thing: why we can't, I'll give you another example why prostitution can't really be called.
If you consider it sex work, you'd say it's a job like other jobs that are not the most fun to do.
Is that what the idea of a prostitute would be?
If under the sex work paradigm, it's a job and there are unpleasant elements.
And like other jobs, many people do it just so they want to get paid.
I wouldn't say that job is necessarily unpleasant.
I think everything has aspects of unpleasantness to it.
Okay, well, I would say that you don't think prostitution is generally an unpleasant job?
When you say prostitution, please.
Yes, I said prostitution.
Yes.
Probably in general, I would imagine it's an unpleasant job.
Yes.
I would imagine a job.
But there are lots of jobs that are unpleasant, and we don't treat it like other jobs.
So for example, in other jobs, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, has very strict rules when you come in contact with things like bodily fluids.
So you have to wear goggles, for example.
You have to wear latex gloves, a gown.
You have to minimize exposure to bodily fluids all the time.
But you could never apply those OSHA standards to a prostitute who's expected to, you know, have urine and ejaculate and other things put in their face.
So you can't treat it like other jobs, can you?
In regards to the bodily fluids thing, probably not.
Right.
So it seems very suspicious that if we were to go in and say, okay, well, she's going to wear these goggles and this gown and the guy, it can't just be a latex condom.
That's pretty insufficient.
You could spread HPV even still in the areas that are uncovered.
You gotta wear, to make it a job, covered in OSHA, you gotta wear like a big old diaper that like covers everything in latex in the midsection.
And that's the only time sex acts are gonna be allowed, is if you make sure there's no physical bodily contact.
Couldn't you also substitute this with like a lot of rigorous testing prior to the action?
No, because it doesn't matter.
The OSHA regulations aren't just preventing the spread of definitely infectious liquids, of even potentially.
It's the liquids themselves.
My point is just that if anyone has to say, if you had prostitution as a job that actually satisfied standards for safe work apparatuses, men wouldn't go to that.
They would go to the illegal alternatives because it's not about this being a certain job, it's about acquiring a commodity in the bodies of women or men who are frankly treated like that.
Well, the evidence shows that when you do start treating it like a job, STD rates go down, condom use goes up.
So I'm just, I don't get how.
I'm just going to.
So what are those?
Like, I've heard studies that say that before, and they're often misleading.
Like, there was one about Rhode Island, for example, that claimed, like, oh, well, you know, gonorrhea goes down, so it makes prostitution legal, except chlamydia also goes up during this time.
These are often very cherry-picked.
pick some diseases but not others to try to say that this is this is acceptable or not but when you compare for example when you compare Germany where prostitution has been legalized since 2002 and Sweden where the Nordic model let's just stick on the OSHA thing right so Fine.
Well, I'm just saying that prostitutes get killed in Germany.
They don't get killed in Sweden.
Okay, for sports, don't athletes sometimes come into contact with like blood and stuff?
Like if you're a boxer or if you do MMA?
Right, and you minimize that, and then you might.
Wait, no, wait.
They don't box in OSHA outfits, right?
They don't have biohazard suits on.
Also, pornography is already an employment industry in the United States.
It's legal.
Are you telling me there are no OSHA standards?
The bodily fluids that happen in mixed martial arts competitions are incidental to the act.
You can get involved in MMA match or jiu-jitsu match or boxing and not come in contact with blood.
And you definitely won't come, you know, you won't come in contact with semen.
That's not going to happen.
Well, wait, what's more likely to carry different types of horrible infectious diseases, blood versus semen?
Do you know?
I don't know the answer to that.
I guess it depends what it gets into, but the point is that.
No, that's not the point.
Then I will answer, it's still incidental.
The goal in boxing and MMA and things like that is not to cause abrasions and cuts.
And if those things happen, that is the goal.
That is the goal.
What do you mean?
You're literally trying to beat the other person up.
It's incidental.
You don't have to do that.
That's not incidental.
Me punching somebody in the face, then bleeding is not incidental and punching them in the face.
But it is different, though, than what is going on in a sex act where somebody is ejaculating into somebody's mouth.
That's completely different.
And there's no, like, we would have bandages to be applied and things to prevent the spread of bodily fluids in a sport, which I don't know if that falls under OSHA as much.
That's a sport different than just OSHA.
So here's a question: Do you think OSHA standards just don't exist for porn in the United States?
They don't exist for pornography.
Hey, wait, wait, hold on, because pornography is an employment industry in the United States.
Does OSHA stand up?
I believe that it's completely inconsistent how it's treated compared to other prostitutes.
When you say inconsistent, isn't there going to be a different set of OSHA standards based on whatever the particular job is?
Isn't that literally the point of OSHA is to create guidelines for safety for doing jobs?
I mean, if we want to go to the same.
Wait, do you say no?
I didn't hear the question.
That OSHA is going to have a different set of standards for different jobs.
There's probably going to be different rules depending on your work environment, right?
There are going to be slight variations, but just the basic rules of how we'd apply these different jobs and different workplace regulations and rules just cannot be applied to quote-unquote sex workers.
Going to prostitution in terms of the reason.
I just answered that real quick because I want to get a final word.
OSHA does have standards for pornography, and they do apply to pornography, and they work just hard.
But regardless of the standards that may or may not apply to prostitutes today and to sex workers today who are engaged in prostitution, prostitution leads to very bad outcomes back to when I talk about data for prostitutes.
And so I think that's something.
I mean, Trent talked about the correlation, obviously, between the increase in human trafficking, but it's also harmful to the prostitutes themselves in addition to that.
I want to really go through that.
I want to go through the data on that because I'm talking about the prostitution.
And I'll just say a couple things.
Criminalizing has to be a lot of fun.
Well, let me just finish, Jasmine.
Let me just finish.
So I had on my show recently an ex-porn actor named Joshua Broome, and he shared his story.
He was one of the top ranked or awarded porn actors at the time, and he left the industry.
He's now happily married with four kids.
So his life wasn't ruined.
In the end, he was able to change his life, and he's now extremely fulfilled.
But he shared about how during his time in the industry, which was six or seven years, 30 of his close friends took their lives because of the just extremely 30 of his close friends took their lives.
Were these all porn stars?
These are people involved in pornography creating pornography.
So by the luck of Josh's story, he's got there are 30 porn stars around him that killed themselves?
Correct.
Yes.
Okay.
And so I've never heard that my life.
Okay, in the archive of women's mental health, there's a study that shows that 20% of prostitutes have suicidal ideation.
And in fact, how many of these women are in the world?
Wait, wait, what percentage is it?
Not 20%.
Isn't it like 47% have tried like prostate depression?
People who have sex for money, the rates of post-traumatic stress disorder among these individuals are on par with combat veterans.
And think about how much suicide afflicts combat veterans.
But the statistic for that specifically, though, according to this study, is that there's an increase in risk for suicide attempt of 41% versus the average of 29%.
So that 10% increase for those involved in prostitution.
Psychotic episodes, 41% versus 27%.
HIV AIDS, 6% to 1%.
Other STDs like hepatitis, STDs, 11% to 2%.
Emergency room visits, 44% to 34%.
So the reality is, if now we're talking from the point of view of is sex work good or harmful, excuse me, for the prostitute, it is very harsh.
Well, here's the problem.
You're never going to eliminate that women are going to do prostitution, but we have all the data.
No, no, no, no.
Let me finish.
No, it is, though, because you're not going to get there's always going to be people that are going to supply this.
And when we criminalize it or when we stigmatize it, yeah, and when we, but if there were certain things that policy decisions that we could make that could decrease negative effects for these prostitutes, because there's over 42 million of them, according to the data that we have, and the studies show that D-Crim and legalized location, so consistent improved condom use, this is a big study 2021 in the Quarterly Journal of Economics.
17 work-sized census at four points in time, pre-crim, post-announcement, but still pre-crime, post-crim, and five years post-crim, not only show that STD rates go down for those people, but overall in that society as well.
Jasmine, the crime rates and the amount of violence perpetrated against the prostitutes, both by police and by their clients, goes up the more you criminalize.
But the question that we are asking ourselves today: is sex work harmful?
Is sex work bad?
And I just read data that shows that if you are involved in prostitution, you are at higher risk for suicidal ideation, for having lies.
You're at higher risk for being, and then also here's a study that talks about the higher risk of being sexually assaulted or raped.
Being a lawyer increases your likelihood of substance abuse, increases your suicide, increases your likelihood of depression.
Is being a lawyer bad?
We need professionals to defend us in a courtroom.
Men don't need professionals to have orgasms.
They can do that themselves if they need it.
Well said, Fritz.
The problem is that.
The point is, sex work is not needed for our society the way that it's going to be there.
It's always going to be there.
You can inactive.
And it's not a good argument.
Maybe I would take that, but we have to be graphical.
Like I said, in order to say if something is good or bad, you have to look at what happens if you try to come in and take it.
That's not all of the evidence shows.
That's not even the question we're asking about how to regulate or make it illegal, et cetera.
We're asking, is it?
Let me just finish.
We're asking, is it harmful, right?
And we're saying, we're showing data and explaining that it is harmful.
You're saying, well, being an attorney can be harmful.
The position here is, well, you don't need, we don't, a society doesn't need sex work the way that it needs to be.
Society doesn't need athletes.
Athletes are universally harmed.
Let me just respond.
And then your response to that is, well, it's inevitable.
There's always going to be something.
Okay, so is being a lawyer bad for the lawyer itself?
Okay, so my question is: let me sex work.
Please let me know.
You got to let me finish.
You always interrupt me.
Murder is inevitable.
It still happens even though it's against the law, right?
Rape, sexual assault is inevitable.
It still happens, though it's against the law.
The inevitability argument that something will still happen to some degree, even if it's regulated, restricted, made illegal, et cetera, isn't an argument for why it's good or bad.
And our argument today, that the position we're taking is that this thing is bad.
So I have a question.
If you were talking about the fact that you were talking about how, oh, it's really bad for the actual sex workers.
And I'm saying, okay, being a lawyer is bad for the actual lawyer.
So my question to you is: if the data showed that having sex work or having porn actually led to less violence in society, and like if the data showed that, then would it be good?
Because you're saying we need lawyers.
If having sex workers, the data did show that, would that change your position?
No, because we shouldn't exploit people just to make society a better place.
Okay, we shouldn't treat people like commodities.
We shouldn't do evil so good may come.
So like I have a question about keeping prostitutes.
I don't understand how that doesn't apply to athletes.
When it comes, well, you're.
Like for fighters, you're literally watching two people.
Your analogy with your.
How is that not commodification?
No, your analogy would work if we actually had gladiatorial combat, where people used to have in ancient Rome, where somebody is going to kill another person.
And let's say you figure out, hey, you know what?
It turns out when we have gladiator matches, like violence goes down.
It's a cathartic release when people watch the movie.
I reject the analogy.
I'm saying that when two people.
Whoa, no.
Yes, when two people, you don't need to make an analogy to my analogy.
I'm saying that very clearly, two people fighting on stage, we are commodifying their bodies.
They undergo severe physical trauma.
All of their health care or health lifetime outcomes fall dramatically, right?
CTE, among other things.
If an athlete had the same level of trauma that a prostitute underwent, I would agree that sports should be outlawed.
That's why, for example, I'm very sympathetic to regulating professional football because of the rate of concussive injuries, especially among minors.
So I agree with your point, but the level of harm that a prostitute undergoes is way beyond what a lawyer undergoes, even what a professional athlete undergoes.
It's the mental harm on par with like a combat veteran.
Sure, but let me finish.
Or, for example, the question I had for Jasmine was: since 2002, where prostitution is legal in Germany, how many prostitutes have been murdered?
Do you know?
I don't have that data in front of me, but I know.
It's 69.
How many have been murdered in Sweden in that time?
I don't know.
We could go through the money.
One, and it was by a jealous ex-boyfriend.
We could.
Because Sweden cuts the demand and makes it a bad place that even sex traffickers are.
Wait on real quick.
What is the population of Germany?
It's much larger.
It's larger.
How much larger?
Like 10 times?
It's not 10 times larger.
What is the population of Germany?
I don't know.
Even if you control.
Look it up.
Yeah.
Look it up.
Even if it's- It's at least five times larger.
No, even if you control for the population differences that are involved, no sex worker has been killed by a client in Sweden since they established the Nordic model in 1990.
Maybe 3 million, by the way.
None.
Okay, so it's like 9 to 10 times larger than Sweden.
Isn't Sweden like 9 million or something?
I'm just curious.
Wait, wait, wait, real quick, on this athlete thing.
Okay, I'm going back to this, okay?
10 million.
If you want to compare athletes to prostitutes, that's not a fair comparison.
We could compare street fighters to athletes.
You did it.
No, no, no, no, hold on.
You're saying that prostitutes have all these negative outcomes and athletes don't.
Athletes would be the equivalent to like a brothel that's legalized.
If you want to compare prostitutes to illegal athletes, you'd look at like street fighters or something.
I think that the outcomes of no, but the studies show the harm among prostitutes, even in places where prostitution has been legalized and brothels are allowed, you still have the mental health effects.
So waiting physical events, you have people that have anal muscles being torn out of them because they have sex with 10 guys in a night.
Nobody, I'd rather do MMA with, I'd rather have Mike Tyson punch me in the face than do that.
And the case that I brought up of Joshua Broome and his friends, they were not even prostitutes.
They were in the porn industry.
That's awesome.
Okay, so it's horrible, and that's the point.
I mean, suicide is because of despair connected to a lifestyle that's living out of reality of using your body and constantly abusing your body.
That's the problem here.
Okay, wait, wait.
Okay.
If you are saying, I just want to give this statement to Claire.
You're telling me that the outcomes for prostitutes that work in legal brothels is the same as the outcome for prostitutes that work outside in illegal areas.
Are they the same?
Yeah.
No, that's not what he said.
No, I'm just saying that they're negative.
They're worse than other occupations.
Okay, so then are the outcomes of prostitutes that work in brothels better than the outcome of prostitutes that work outside of brothels?
We don't know because the— You're not even going to make an educated guess?
You have no idea.
We don't know because the circumstances of brothels in different countries and different regions, some of them are tightly regulated and have different behaviors.
I'm saying in one city, in one area, you're telling me that you think that prostitutes that work in legally regulated brothels have the same outcomes as prostitutes that work in sexuality.
They have the same outcome.
They have different degrees, different degrees of outcomes, probably.
One might be more likely to have substance abuse than the other, but it's still higher than the general population.
Okay, but you do not, when it comes to data, you guys are not like, this is Associations between Sex Work Laws and Sex Workers' Health, a systematic review, a meta-analysis of quantitative and qualitative studies, demonstrating sex workers who have exposed to repressive policing, including the Nordic model, were significantly more likely to experience violence from clients than others.
There's a lot of studies that show this.
The Nordic model increases violence.
That's not true.
In the Nordic model, for example, it showed that certain acts of violence increase, like hair pulling or slapping, but other acts of violence, like rape, actually drop by 50%.
Drug use is more frequently reported in studies from criminalized and partially criminalized settings, which would be the Nordic model.
A study explicitly comparing health service access between decriminalized, legalized, and criminalized settings experience the poorest health and safety outcomes with greater investment in health promotion programs and occupational health and safety measures in decriminalized and regulated settings.
So you guys do not win the data war on if criminalizing sex work.
We're not talking about criminalization.
We're talking about a Nordic model is better than Dr. McCormick.
Then I'll give you another study.
Nordic model is not better in Decriminal.
When it comes to outcomes to sex workers, you cannot argue that the Nordic model is helping sex workers more than D-Criminal.
A 2003 study by Farley et al. in seven countries showed that 89% of prostitutes want to quit their job but can't because of financial reasons.
Same, but if you look at janitors and people who scrub toilets.
Do you have any data on that?
That they don't want to work?
I can probably find something.
Do you think that what the job satisfaction is?
Let me put it this way.
Is it bad that, so if somebody wants to stop doing something and they can't, so it sounds like we have women, the majority of them, want to stop having sex with men, but they can't.
It sounds like we're facilitating rape on a mass scale then.
I don't think that's rape, right?
I'm not saying that there are prostitutes even though someone is that has to be a professional.
No, no, no, no.
If someone is a prostitute who feels like they need to do this for money and they can't quit because they need that money and a man comes and pays to have sex with them, you don't think their consent has been infringed?
No, I think that, yes, sex workers, I'm sure a lot of prostitutes would rather be rock stars, okay?
That's not the point.
Are they consenting?
Are they fully conscious?
Yes, they're consenting, just like somebody who doesn't want to make you a sandwich but doesn't have a choice is going to be a problem.
So when a Hollywood actress consents to the executive producer having sex with them because she's worried about losing the role, that's not rape?
That's completely different because with sex work, you are saying, hey, this is my job.
I will have sex with you if you pay me.
How is that?
It's because these women don't, it's not voluntary.
Like, well, I'd rather go somewhere else and make money.
They feel like because they can't get employment anywhere else.
Or because they have previous sex, sorry, previous prostitution and drug convictions prevent them from getting undergoing trauma.
You can't get a job in a lot of places if you have a felony conviction.
That's why D-Crim is really great, because in New Zealand where they did that, the Criminal Records Clean Slate Act of 2004, sex workers can have past prostitution-related offenses expunged from their records.
Places where...
Going...
Going back to my example with the executive producer and the actress, would you say that consent is something you can't fully have if the person you're having sex with controls whether you're paid or not?
No, you can't consent.
You don't aren't consenting there because you didn't consent to that arrangement.
What if she went into it expecting that to happen?
If you went into it consenting to it to happen, then fine.
Yeah.
Well, it's often expected.
And something being expected and something being expected are two completely different things.
Well, what if they went in there and they said, this is part of what I want to do?
If they said on your contract, you can write this, you can do that, blah, blah, blah, and you also have sex with this guy, then that's a lot.
It's not a certain amount of time.
It's okay for a boss to have sex with a secretary.
Or not even a boss.
and tuition loading so hard.
No, I'm not.
I'm asking a question.
You're dodging a question.
No, hold on.
I'm not dodging a question.
Talking about it.
You're not listening to what I'm saying.
I didn't even ask the question.
I didn't even get through to the question because you didn't.
We could pick another example.
Like an audition where you're not currently employed and the director says, yeah, I want to get you in this movie, but I got to see if you really look the parts, if you can really pull off these sex scenes.
And so she's not employed yet, but she would really like to get this job and really needs it.
There's certainly coercion and we would say that that's rape rate.
If everything is broadcast out in the open and it's like part of it.
And they have to share it publicly.
You can say that it's scummy or it feels wrong, whatever, but is it coercion?
No, you're walking into there.
You're accepting the job.
He's like, okay, fuck it.
I'll do it.
Like, if that's something that comes at the end of the process, like, oh, by the way, you got to fuck me.
Oh, by the way, you got to do this.
Then yeah, you can say that's coercive.
So you think it's acceptable for a boss to make a move on an employee provided the employee consents and his mind says that they're not going to be able to do it.
Like during the interview process.
Why would that be wrong?
I can explain consent to you.
I guess because you're religious, you don't understand it.
So the reason why it's wrong is because consent can't be negotiated between parties that have power over you.
But what if you went in there with the analysis that this might end up happening to be a matter of time?
No, this might end up happening.
This is part consent.
We understand consent.
Okay, wait, hold on.
Because you're polyamorous, you don't understand the dangers of consent.
I have to explain.
I have to explain.
And now we've seen what's happened from that.
You have to explain, okay?
No, you went after us.
I'll go after you.
No, no, hold on.
You're asking me, why can an employee not consent to having sex with a boss?
The reason why you can't do that is because you cannot determine if consent exists there.
Because you don't know if the employee says, let me finish.
You don't understand the topic, so let me finish, okay?
The employee doesn't even rude about it.
Then stop trying to cut me off when I'm trying to explain something.
The employee cannot consent because the employee doesn't know if they say no, if they're going to get fired.
That's why you can't have consent between people overpowered.
But if the job says you have to do X, Y, and Z and Z is having sex, that's not the same type of consent as in the middle of a non-sexual job, your boss is trying to get you to have sex with you.
But to Trent's scenario, if you're going into this and it's a scene that involves sex scenes and the boss says this is something we're going to do to practice a sex scene, would you consider that a problem?
If it's advertised as part of the job, then no.
If it's sprung on you and you weren't expecting it, then yes.
Sounds like Harvey Weinstein should have just been more forthright then.
Yes, unironically, yes.
We can compare podcasts to the Podgers World.
If there was a podcast and the guy brought on women and the guy brought on women, no, that was the problem.
The issue, if there was a movie studio and the studio says, we've got a producer and he'll make movies, but you got to fuck him to do it, would that be scummy?
Yeah, of course.
Would it be kind of like slimy, maybe unethical, kind of weird or whatever?
Sure.
But would it be like non-consensual?
No, you're signing up for it.
You literally are saying, okay, I'll go and get a business.
Well, what's making it scummy and bad?
I'm sure it's injuring consent and stuff.
I think it's scummy because like a guy having sex with women in order to like get them jobs is kind of like a scummy thing.
But it's a lot of fun.
That's not a reason.
That's just an opinion.
It is.
That's what scummy is.
Scummy is an opinion.
It's also scummy if you said you have to struggle my picture.
So you learned that.
So you get to say that that sect act is bad because it makes you feel bad.
I didn't say it was bad.
I said it was scummy.
Yeah.
So is that a term of a negative moral evaluation?
It's like a moral non-cognitivist position of like, this act, that's just like it.
It's not like a strong statement on if it's unethical.
But we can say none of that.
I think that's a problem with it.
I don't know if you have a problem.
It's just scummy.
Just like if someone said, oh, you have to scrub my toilets in order to get this job in your life.
Or if you go to like Thanksgiving, it has nothing to do with sex, but it's still really scummy.
Or like family members.
And it's not acceptable, and it has nothing to do with sex.
No, they're both exploitative.
That's exploitative of cheap labor that's not related to an acting role.
And the other is sexual exploitation.
All forms of all forms of labor are exploitative.
Nobody would work if they didn't have to.
And I thought you weren't a communist.
No, but using your definition, all forms of labor are exploitative.
Nobody wants to be a janitor.
Nobody wants to work at McDonald's.
Nobody wants to make you a sandwich, a subway.
It's all exploitative, right?
If those people had other alternatives, they wouldn't do it.
No, I think that's a good idea.
And a lot of people think there's no ability to do that.
And because it's the best thing that you're doing, I think the difference is when you work at McDonald's or even if you work as a janitor, there's tremendous dignity and honor in that work.
To you.
Yeah, what you do is something you're proud of that you can jump on it.
A janitor can bring their kids and say, hey, look at this, Timmy.
It's all clean and great.
Your old man did a good job.
I doubt you'd want to bring your kids to bring your kids to work day for you.
I don't have kids.
But if you did, I doubt you do bring your kids to work day.
If I ran a casino or if I ran a bar and there were drunk people everywhere, I wouldn't take my kid into the bar with me either.
That doesn't mean me being a bartender or me running.
If you run a bar that has a bunch of drunk people, you're actually doing something wrong.
Bartenders should not facilitate open drunkenness on their property.
Even a casino, that's something that's fine.
But I think that this is very, this is, once again, sex work is not work.
And it's not good.
If you're an obstetrician or a gynecologist, would you want to bring your kids to work to show all the vaginas?
No, because those are sexual organs that have particular, because they're sexual organs, no, you should just keep sex away from kids.
And you might show them.
If you run a dispensary, should you bring your kids in?
No one's doing anything wrong.
We're just buying weed.
It's legal.
Is that something you want to bring your kids into?
That's not necessarily wrong.
I think you can treat, it would depend on this.
However, I think that if you are concerned about a child adopting a behavior that could be destructive to them, whether it's alcohol or marijuana, then you might not show that to them.
But I think that shows that it's not great for your position that there is something destructive in some way about pornography and prostitution.
You wouldn't want to bring your kids to see it.
There's something damaging.
I think the other thing that's just so sad about the conversation is we're getting down into these different cases of how horrible these different things are by degrees.
And I think the reality is sex is a good thing.
Sex is a beautiful thing.
Sex is an amazing thing.
And the problem, the fundamental issue that Trenton and I have been proposing here about sex work being harmful.
Would you bring your old to say you have sex with your husband?
Just to let me finish.
It commoditizes it.
It objectifies the people involved.
It takes sex out of the context where sex belongs, which is in love.
And I believe in marriage.
Yeah.
So my point is that they're bringing their child to work because sex work is bad.
Would you bring your child in while you and your husband have sex?
Of course not.
The same reason wouldn't bring you in.
Sex work is bad.
But that's because that says sex works.
But the reason that it's bad is because I wouldn't bring my kid in to watch me have sex.
You wouldn't bring your kid in to watch you have sex in this great, loving, wonderful, proper use of sex either.
That doesn't mean that I'm not doing work when I'm having sex with my husband.
I'm expressing love.
I'm not being paid by him.
I'm expressing love.
So then why won't you bring your child in there?
Because sex is private between two people.
That's how it's designed.
And that's what it should be.
I mean, they're asking.
And that's one of the reasons why pornography is so harmful.
And one of the reasons why sex...
Because we can confidently say...
Would you tell your...
Exposing children to sex is bad.
It just is.
Because that's something their brains are not prepared to do.
Even marital sex, though.
Even exposing marital sexual lines between the people not to be able to do that.
So I don't think it's a good argument to say that.
Children can't come with you to your porn site.
Children can't come with you into your bedroom.
The point of asking that question and Trent going along that line of reasoning was to show there is a difference between the work of the noble work of being a janitor.
And I would say to look down on people who work in a fast food restaurant or look down on a janitor to say that they just want to get out of the job.
It's a horrible job.
Yeah, there are difficulties, but to say it's a horrible job, there's nobility to that work.
There is not nobility to selling your body to someone else.
This is just putting your morals on.
This is noble disease.
There is morality around you.
There's morality around sex.
And you would even agree with that.
You would even agree that there is some morality around sex, which is there.
What do you mean?
Yeah, of course there's some morality around that.
There's some morality around janitors.
There's some morality being a fatal worker, right?
Because there's certain regulations.
So far, the only morality I've been able to ascertain from both of you is that there should be consent between two adults.
Is that the only morality that you believe exists around sex?
That's a huge starting point, yes.
Is that the only morality that you believe exists around sex?
I can't answer yes to that because I'm sure we can think of some exceptions where there might be some other qualifier.
Well, you've thought about it a lot, clearly, and we're at this point.
Well, yeah, but if you're going to ask me a hypothetical of like, what if when you have sex with somebody, it causes the fusion of two atoms and hybrid embodiments, I don't know.
In general, I think most morality is going to be built around a reciprocation of consensual respect for other people.
Okay, so how about consensual incest among adults?
If you want to do it, if you have a really hot sister, then go for it.
And there's no harm to not reproduce.
I have a question related to that.
So incest is okay.
I got a question.
And bestiality is okay.
I didn't say bestiality, but I don't think we should be doing any of those harm to animals.
If an animal is consenting, then bestiality is okay, but I don't think an animal is considered.
I think I would rather live in Bestiality.
Bestiality is that.
There's no way.
There's no way for the animal to consent, just like there's no way for a child to consent.
Trent was trying to be like, oh, but we do all these other experiences among animals.
We shouldn't do that.
I think, and you said, oh, which one's worse?
It depends.
It depends.
Some of the experiences we do to animals are horrible.
If we literally take out their ovaries, we do all of that.
Can I play frisbee with a dog?
I would rather, I would rather, if I was, you know, I think sometimes even having sex with animals is better than some of the shit we do to animals, like moving their ovaries around, killing them, literally killing them in order to.
Does a dog consent to being trained?
What?
Does a dog consent to being potty trained?
Wait a minute.
Are you saying you're saying that sex with animals is not as bad as killing them?
What do you mean I said?
Would you just say that killing them is worse?
I think killing animals is, it depends, right?
It depends what you think.
Say that one more time.
What do you want me to say?
Just the way you said it.
Wait, like what?
Did you say killing animals is worse than?
No, I'm saying sometimes the experience of being a single person.
Yes, I think probably generally, yeah.
Why?
What's the next question?
How could you possibly flip that?
Do you disagree?
Do you think that having sex with an animal is worse than killing it?
Yes.
Yes, it is worse.
Because for those animals, for non-rational beings that we can eat, there's nothing immoral about that.
Sex is for human beings.
And I'm sorry you guys say you think the sex, because we're not religious.
So you think it's not about religious.
No, you're not sane.
You're an insane person.
So wait, who is the sex worst for versus the killing worst for?
Are you just looking at the perspective of the human and not the animal at all?
Or who is it?
No, I'm talking about the act.
You're reframing it as what causes more or less harm.
No, no, I'm talking about.
You said sex for an animal is worse than killing the animal.
I'm asking you worse than that.
It's not just for an animal.
I think it's an answer to that.
I'm saying the act of killing an animal is, sorry, the act of sex with an animal is morally worse than the act of killing the animal.
And the only thing that has any moral perspective in your eyes would be the human.
Yes, because not the only thing.
There are ways to treat animals that are immoral, like animal torture.
Killing them?
Is it immoral?
It can be immoral to kill an animal if you're doing it for a personality.
In an inhumane way, cruel purpose or an inhumane way.
Cruel, in whose judgment?
No, let's say if you're stuck on a desert island and there's if you're stuck on a desert island and you I was just talking about stuck on a desert island is very obvious like you're killing an animal to eat it for burgers because it tastes good and it feels good.
No, here's the example.
If you're stuck in a desert island and you find a wild pig there and you kill it to eat, that's not morally wrong.
Because you want to satisfy hunger.
If you're on the island and it turns out you're just horny and you use the pig to satisfy that, yes, that is morally worse.
Is it morally worse if you just hunt to kill an animal just for fun?
Is morally worse than what?
Is it morally worse to kill an animal because you just want to hunt for fun than how?
Yeah, two people going to the forest.
One guy's hunting with a spear, one guy's hunting with a dick.
Who's more immoral there?
The guy that stabs the pig and kills it, the guy that runs the animal and fucks it and runs it.
Is he going to kill them?
Which one is more immoral?
I love it.
He's picking up, maybe.
But I'm asking.
No, I want to answer.
I want to answer.
What's more unethical?
The guy hunting with a spear or the guy hunting with a dick?
Why?
Is the guy that throws a spear?
He's more ethical to kill the animal than leaving.
It is rotten.
It is much more gravely depraved to have sex with an animal than to kill it in a slightly more religious way.
And the reason for that, and the reason for that is what?
The reason holds out is that you want to eat the animal?
Our position is that our position is that sex with a lot of people.
That's what this view leads to.
Our position is that sex with animals is always wrong.
My understanding of your position is that it's only potentially wrong because an animal can't consent.
I asked you, can your dog, does your dog consent when you train him to use the, go to the bathroom?
Not any more than your child consents to it.
Okay, so you're saying that you can train your, the dog doesn't consent to some things.
You're saying the dog is a child, and that's why it's wrong to have sex with a dog.
I'm saying that if we're talking about consent the way we know it, informed consent, I don't think there's any evidence to show that a dog can give you informed consent.
No, back to my other example.
Can kids work for the police?
Can kids work for the police?
Kids can't work in general.
No.
Can dogs work for the police?
Yes.
Okay, so it seems like it's a difference there.
You can place them in a dangerous, life-threatening situation for the common good of society, and we see nothing immoral about that.
What's wrong with sex with them?
They don't consent to work within the workers.
Yeah, if they can't consent to sex, they can't consent to work for the cops.
But we see they can work for the cops, so why can't they do the lesser harm?
What's the lesser harm?
Sex with them.
Having sex because they could die in their jobs in the police force.
I mean, if there was some evidence out that dogs working for police officers and stuff was like really bad, like that's the thing with animals, it's really because we don't know what they're able, what they understand, what's good for them, what's not good for them.
If there was evidence that working for police officers was really causing a lot of harm to dogs, then I would say that's bad.
We shouldn't have to do that.
So you need a social, you need a scientific paper to tell you whether it's good for animals for people to have sex with the people.
I just said it's not, I never said that it's good for fucked up shit.
You said, oh, well, there's all this left up shit we do to animals.
We should do, why not have sex with them?
I'm saying we shouldn't do any of the fucked up shit to animals.
That's my position.
What's inconsistent about that?
Let's say hypothetically there's a small handful of dogs who die in the line of duty.
They're just like the most dangerous job is logging.
Should humans not be able to do that.
But the point of where we're going, the point, the question here is, why is it okay to employ a dog without their consent?
But to your point, consent is important.
My point is that we shouldn't be doing a lot of harm to animals.
I never said that having sex with them is okay.
I also said that testing on them.
It's testing the limits of your moral belief.
And what I'm saying is you're saying it's okay for dogs to work.
What are you saying that I disagree with?
What are you saying that I disagree with?
I just don't understand what you're saying.
Can I finish my question?
You're saying that it's okay for a dog to work for the police, even if there's maybe a teeny bit of harm, but largely speaking, you don't want them to be harmed.
But it's okay for a dog to work for the police, but it's not okay for a dog to do sex work for a human being because they don't consent for sex work.
It's all about work to the police, so why would it, why is it not okay with sex work?
It's not all about what?
So you're saying that because we allow dogs to work with- I'm asking you a question.
My position is this.
If there is any action that we're doing, especially if it's not producing a good to society, because I think that's what I'm saying.
But you think that sex work produces a tremendous good.
You keep talking about how good it is.
Yeah.
I don't say that there are people that enjoy sex with animals and there are people who enjoy sex with animals.
And your argument so far is we don't.
It's not okay.
We don't need we let me just finish.
It's not okay because the dog doesn't consent.
The dog does not consent to work for the police.
Why is it not okay for a dog to do sex work?
Because I think that when you're talking about working for the police, those dogs actually, their lives are better.
A lot of what happens.
What if they're treated like a king in their sex work job?
No, that's the thing.
If I had any evidence that having sex with these dogs is something these dogs enjoyed and liked, I would say it's fine.
I don't know.
Dogs seem to get pretty.
They seem to get pretty humpy about it.
Yeah, that's the thing.
I care about the harm to the animal.
That is my position.
What if the dog is hard?
My position is about animal to the orgasm.
If the dog.
Yes, if this is my point.
This is my thing.
If we can show that there is a harm to the animal being done, then I would say it's bad.
This is my position.
If we can show that there is no harm or that the dog enjoys it or that the dog is better off, if we could show that that was what's going on with bestiality.
So you are okay with bestiality as long as it appears that the animal enjoyment.
I didn't say it appears.
That's the problem.
As long as the animal orgasms.
I didn't say that either.
Well, then.
I don't think right now, that's why I said I don't believe it.
I don't think we should do bestiality right now because we have no way of knowing.
I don't think orgasm.
Because people orgasm when they get raped too.
That's not a good way to determine whether something is a police officer.
In general, it seems that he does.
If we're looking at what seems like he does.
In general, when we're looking at what is a dog, like what things can a dog have that makes it seem like their life is better.
And if there was any way to show that if you fuck them all the time and they're enjoying it and it's making their lives better, I would say go for it.
Well, it doesn't have to be penetrative.
Bestiality, we understand the immorality of it, even things of, you know, when the dog arouses a person's genitals, things like that.
And I'm not pulling this out of thin air.
Like I said earlier, Peter Singer, a famous philosopher, was sharing this and defending it on his Twitter.
He's a world-famous philosopher.
This is not, and when you search for this stuff, you find it everywhere.
People might say, oh, why are you bringing up this fringe thing?
Why this fringe thing?
Well, look, homosexual pornography was probably fringe 80 years ago.
And the reason, another reason why consent is such a weak foundation for sexual morality as its whole, you know, saying, oh, as long as there's consent, we're good, is you can chip away at it from every other angle too.
And animals, we just went through this exercise, but you can chip away at it for children.
I mean, we've drawn this line 18, 17, 16.
Do you have any arguments for adult consenting adults, or is it all children and animals that you have to go to?
I've made arguments several times, and you know, what if you said it again about why sex is not just about consent?
Sex is about so much more than consent.
Sex is about love.
Sex is about intimacy, and sex is about the potential to bring life into the world.
So, but that's for you.
That's for you.
That's for how sex is designed, Jasmine.
If that was the way it's designed and that's the way it's supposed to work, then we're going to be able to do it.
We've been always deviating away earlier.
I said even Destiny made this earlier saying that's the design of sex.
Even if it's a design of sex, inevitably can bring about emotional connections.
Of course, it can bring about that, but it is.
It does inevitably also.
It can.
It can.
I agree that it can, but it doesn't.
But it doesn't have to.
If this was the design, then there wouldn't be so many people that want to deviate from it and do deviate from it.
If this was just a design, right?
We didn't just malfunction and decide, actually, I don't want this.
This isn't working out for me.
Let me try these other forms.
If this was the way it's designed, right?
Food is designed for us to eat.
We don't use it any other way.
The reason we use sex is that it's not a problem.
That's like saying our bodies are designed, for example, to have a certain amount of salt and sugar, probably.
But think about it.
Tons of people eat way more salt and sugar than their bodies were designed to handle because we live in a time when salt and sugar and fat, we have an unlimited access to it that we didn't have for thousands of years.
So is it bad?
Too much of it is bad for you.
A process of donuts bad.
In too much, in excess.
And I think pornography, if you use it in a way that impacts your life, then you shouldn't do it.
If you're Catholic, you probably shouldn't watch porn.
The results seem pretty bad.
Care about your pornography.
That doesn't mean that porn is bad.
Just like the donut and the bag of chips is not bad because in moderation, it doesn't seem to have these effects.
Same thing with porn.
Where there's less than 5% of people that even report having these problems, and a lot of them tend to be religious, and moral incongruence is the number one predictor of having these issues.
Those people shouldn't use it.
It doesn't make the actual thing bad.
Yeah, I don't think it's about being religious per se or not.
I think it's about human nature.
But that has a huge impact.
That has an impact because typically, if that's human nature, then how come such a small percentage of people have an issue with that?
Typically, people who are religious try to ascertain and live by a certain moral code.
That's more than just make sure there's consent.
And so that's where you seem to have a rub and you're just saying, well, they're just religious.
No, they're people that have taken the time to understand themselves and try to understand others to say more than consent is what's good for me, you, and society.
The position of Trent and I.
I would have this position even without being Catholic.
And before I get to that point, my question is this: my question is: if the vast majority of people, so I have actually probably less people than when you look at porn, can enjoy processed foods, can enjoy all this in moderation, it doesn't affect them.
The vast, vast majority of people are consuming porn, and you can't show me what harms them and the men know why.
And the harm because you think sex is beautiful and between two people, but that's not an answer.
I want to know what the outcomes are.
If the majority of people.
You can spend a lot of time on that.
Yeah, and we actually, I have, we could spend a lot more time.
You actually made our point that people do, they're not dying from processed foods.
But if you look at the average American who's eating them, they're really suffering from a lot of things, so negative health rates.
They're not dying.
Much the same way to say that pornography and prostitution is bad for society.
It doesn't have to make you a debilitated wreck that can't do anything.
You're just less healthy when it comes to sexual interaction.
Wait, wait, wait.
So the average porn watcher is less healthy in what ways?
Like, where are you getting this?
Well, how are they less healthy?
How many of the 22 studies that show that there's an increase in aggression for younger people who are in the world?
And I have a study that shows that 20% of all relationships consider a point of conflict the porn use of one of the partners.
And if 20% of relationships show prostitutes involved in the prostitution industry and the harm that they are experiencing.
If I friends 20 other feminist friends committed suicide, that is a psychiatric I don't even know.
Like, I've never heard of someone who has if 30 of your friends in any industry commit suicide, I don't know who you're it sounds like a very broken industry, and that's unfortunately the pornography industry today.
He was a secret Russian assassin.
I do need to read a couple chats, and I think we have to wrap up here pretty soon.
So we had a chat here from Legate Jr.
Hey, thank you.
Thank you, man.
For Team DGen, if the number of people identifying as sex workers increased by 5% every year for the next decade, would you say that we would be dealing with a social contagion?
Would sex work still be good or at least not bad?
Shud Nation for Life.
So, I mean, there's been actually a middle-class shift into sex work.
Like, I think even I'm like an example of this, because I've even, I'm like, now that it's become safer and it's become more accessible, more people are doing it, and I'm not seeing that causing more harm in any way.
If you look at, I don't see any data showing that since the proliferation of porn, especially since OnlyFans, that it has led to any negative outcomes other than like podcasts like this that bring a lot of us on.
I think that as more people enter the sexual marketplace, so while OnlyFans, you say like it's safer, yeah, you're not directly under the thumb of a pimp or something like that.
But as more people enter the camming market, there is a pressure there similar to what we see among YouTube content creators, that you have to do more outrageous things to get attention because there's more people in the marketplace vying for that attention.
And so there's a pressure, not maybe from a pimp, but the pressure of other people on the marketplace to do more sex acts that are on the right.
You can talk about this yourself, Jasmine.
I went into your interviews that you had fairly recently.
You talked about how you're asked to do these scripts that seem odd and that involve the style of the same thing.
But that was in the beginning too.
And actually, I do less of those things.
But you've been asked to do that.
No evidence that people that want to join OnlyFans are now feeling pressured to do.
Because let me tell you, as someone who's a very successful OnlyFans creator, this started from nothing.
The goal is just exposure, getting on different social media and getting lucky.
It's not like, oh, here's a video of me.
The most popular OnlyFans creators aren't super popular because they're like, hey, watch me have sex with a horse now.
And that's what made me super popular.
I think that's a good idea.
No, what makes them popular is still things like, you know, being able to insert an entire fist in the anus.
I'm a top 0.01% OnlyFans creator.
I have never done anything like that.
Is Amaranth a top OnlyFans creator?
Do you know?
Yeah, she is.
Amaranth, I think Amaranth, I don't, I could be wrong.
I don't like her shit.
She hasn't even shown a nipple, has she?
A lot of the top OnlyFans creators actually just do solo work, nothing that crazy.
I have never done anything that crazy.
Do people do that?
I'm sure some of you are.
I'm sure some people do, but I don't think there's any correlation between those two.
In fact, the most successful people on OnlyFans do the most shit.
Do you expand your anus for clients because it's something they get off on sync?
They ask me, I say no all the time, especially if I make you all more time, is the point here.
You've never said on your YouTube channel that you do that?
And that I want to spread my anus?
I mean, I can spread it, but for instance, a lot of people ask me to do butt plugs toys.
I have never in my life done that.
And that's just because you're not going to be able to do that.
I understand many girls that don't necessarily know.
You say it's the more popular thing to do, though, and none of the popular OnlyFans creators do it.
Then I don't understand.
There's many women and girls and men and boys involved in trafficking, certainly pornography.
Maybe not.
It's so hard to do trafficking on OnlyFans.
You literally have a bank account in your name.
Can I finish?
And they are exposed to and exploited to very degrading actions and activities.
And so that's the point that we're making: there is an appetite for that.
And these things create an appetite.
And that's why the OnlyFans is so great because you are in complete control of what you say to do and not do.
And when you look at the most successful OnlyFans creators, they are not the ones doing these most intense things.
And look at them.
They're actually fun.
A lot of them are not successful.
I understand that, but I don't think there's any envy and they have to be in the fear that they can't have a successful thing.
Yes, and so certain things, like even the Nordic model, has led to people being like, I don't have time, I can't negotiate now my circumstances because it's basically.
I think you're living in a bubble of unreality.
You are one of the very few OF creators that can largely call the shots.
And many women, though, involved in exploitive sex work involved in both in this country and internationally are not sufficient.
Jasmine's the shot caller.
There you have it.
Here, we got two more chats, and we do got to wrap up here pretty soon.
We have Dog Shite poster 69.
If people need to use artificial devices to prevent pregnancy, condoms, pills, et cetera, then obvious sex is primarily designed for reproduction.
Okay, there's a comment there.
And then we finally have, pulling it up here in just a moment, we have Ibn Pro is forcing an electrician to wire your house at gunpoint equally as bad as forcing a S worker to sleep with you at gunpoint.
Why?
Why not?
And this will be our final thing.
I think a criminal code would say it is worse.
Forcing someone to do something.
I think, for example, that we have an entire category of sex crimes.
We don't have eating crimes.
We don't have breathing crimes.
The fact that we have sex crimes, that a rape that is done when someone is unconscious and it doesn't cause pain is treated worse in the law than maybe simple assault that does cause pain to a person because sex is just a very very different thing than anything else.
Well, and it's the same reason why if you tap someone on the shoulder in the workplace, that might be seen as a normal activity.
Hello, are you there?
If you tap someone on the crotch, it's sexual assault.
There's something clearly different about sex and using your body for sex and then other things like electrical wiring or whatever it is.
We have Aaron Martinez here, fake lawyer.
Maybe now you are refusing the crazy, degrading stuff, but as you hit the wall, as you hit the wall and it's coming fast and your money stream runs dry, you will.
I don't think so.
I mean, I'm pretty sure.
I mean, I went seven figures a year.
If I wasn't even doing it, if I was two years, you're only two years in.
Yeah, and I've made more money than I could have made in a decade in law.
So I probably, what's more likely is I'll retire by the time I hit the wall and I'll live out my life.
Like, and I know, I get it, I'm privileged, but this is always just like a stump.
I mean, again, the argument, the argument that I should be working as a lawyer for 50 years, but this I only have a few years is like saying professional athletes when they hit the wall.
If you want the argument about what you should do, whether you choose between how much money you make as an attorney or an OF, the question is, is sex work good for society or bad for society?
I don't think there's any evidence that you're doing.
And you just said you're very privileged.
Your case is extremely unique.
Yeah, but that was at me.
I know.
So again, living in on the reality of that there are many, many, many, many other women and children and even boys and men who are experiencing not what you're experiencing.
Experiencing what the statistics bear out in the pain of both prostitution and pornography.
But that's the thing.
There are a lot of people who choose sex work because it's the best option for them and they don't want to do those other jobs.
Well, a majority of sex workers, they're doing sex work because they don't want to work another job or they don't have access to another job, taking this away from that.
It's not going to be a good thing.
And that was the case of my friend Joshua Broome.
He wasn't able to get the jobs he was looking for in Hollywood and so he got sucked into the porn industry.
That's a tragedy, not a success story.
Of course, I would rather have everyone who's doing porn to be as lucky as me and that's what they want to do.
But the reality is people take jobs that they can get.
People always take the best job that they can get.
And for some people, that is sex work.
Just like for some people.
A lot of people would beg that is successful.
I thought you said Joshua Bloom was a success story.
No, the point was he wasn't successful in Hollywood.
You said a tragedy, not a sex story.
It sounds like a success story.
Doesn't he have a family?
He's happily married.
After he left the porn industry, he almost killed himself while staying in the porn industry.
What if he would have gone to drug?
He would have actually killed himself.
Which one do you think was better?
I mean, I'm glad he left and he lived.
No, no, let's say that he would have killed himself because he couldn't find jobs or he became homeless and a dry guy.
I misunderstand his story.
Oh, no, I'm not misunderstanding.
I'm asking you.
I'm not misunderstanding his story.
Joshua Broom, if he had a chance to do that, he entered the porn industry.
He struggled to make it as an actor in Hollywood.
I know you said it seven times now.
I know 30 of his friends killed themselves.
I know a horrible epidemic of suicides around him.
I'm asking you, what if instead of getting a job in the sex industry, what if he would have been homeless and got addicted to heroin?
Which one do you think would have been better?
I didn't say it was.
But let's say that those are the two options.
Which one do you think would be better?
I don't think that's a good idea.
You won't even engage with that hypothetical?
You don't think it's ever possible that could you become homeless or do sex work?
These are never to be possible.
I think that if someone is forced into sex work destiny, because otherwise they would be homeless and on heroin, that is another reason why sex work is bad for society and we should instead work on helping people who are homeless and addicted to that.
We all agree here.
I think all of us agree here.
We're all agreeing.
Which one is worse, though?
Which one?
Which one is worse?
Which one would be worse?
They're both bad.
That's not an answer to which one is worse.
So they're equally bad.
Sex is work because most homeless people are not going to be able to do that.
By what measure of Joshua Bloom would have become homeless and addicted to smack, do you think that he would have had the same chance of finding a wife and kids?
I know people who are former drug acts here.
You didn't answer the question at all.
You said, like, well, I know, or I feel.
I'm just asking a question.
That's silly.
Even if it is worse, that doesn't make sex work nothing.
I didn't say it.
I just wanted to know if you can even admit.
What are you trying to prove?
This thing is worse.
What should be an easy question to answer?
You're sitting here saying, Do you think it's ethical to have simulated child pornography being masturbated while you're getting eaten out by a horse and you're loading your shot at home?
That's like saying what's worse, being a hitman or being homeless.
I can answer that question.
I can engage in that.
But child sexual assault material is everywhere.
So it's not that.
I was just curious if you could answer a question.
What's worse than hypothesis?
Being homeless and addicted to heroin or doing sex work.
I was just curious if you could answer that.
I think they're both homeless.
I think it's a worse crime to be raped than it is to have to be homeless.
And I consider it rape as the exploitation of home.
I agree with that.
That's well said.
Let's do this.
Why don't we each give you a one-minute closing statement and then we're going to wrap up the show.
Trent, you start, then Lila, then Jasmine, then Destiny, and then we're going to wrap.
Closing statement.
I'd like to thank everyone for being here today.
Man, this is Destiny.
It's a lot more animated than last time.
I blame the girls on that one.
Destiny started animation today.
Well, it was, but you know what?
I think ultimately what I would want people to consider from this, to go and look at the data and just to ask if sex work, prostitution, and pornography are bad for society, look at what it actually is, not an illusion of what it is.
Go online, go and look at the most popular search-for things on Pornhub, ex-Hamster, cam sites, what prostitutes say that women, so what prostitutes say that men usually request from them.
It's violent, degrading, and so it takes sex and it cheapens it and makes it ultimately meaningless.
And so then it loses its power to be that amazing bonding force that unites people together and create a new human life.
Like sex, it makes a new person.
So of course it's going to attach people together intimately.
We don't want therapists and doctors having sex with people.
Sex is designed to attach people because when a baby is born, it's really good.
Hey, if the people who created this child are bonded together in some way, and sex helps to do that.
But if you turn sex into work, it destabilizes the important role it plays in society and it leads to degradation, abuse, and all the things that we've listed.
And that's why I think people should see past the illusion to see the ugly reality of it.
And I would say, of course, I think sex work, pornography, prostitution is bad for society.
It's bad for everybody involved.
I think the data not only shows that, but people's life experience shows that.
I think many people today are dissatisfied with their dating relationships, marriages, struggle.
We've talked about the mass use of pornography and porn consumption and porn addiction.
I know that's a word that you guys don't like, but porn addiction in addition to child sexual abuse material proliferating, all of this.
And I think that's the consequence of forgetting the beautiful design of what sex is for and disrespecting and cheapening sex.
And I think that we should actually elevate sex and celebrate it more.
It's not puritanical.
It's actually saying reject that viewpoint as well.
Say sex is something that's beautiful and good, designed for love, designed to bring life into the world.
And that's amazing and should be celebrated.
And it's so sad that people's sexual experiences and their orgasm is now being caught up in all of the horrific social harms that we've been talking about at this table when instead they should be caught up in a beautiful relationship of love.
And that's what we're fighting for.
So I appreciate you guys having the conversation.
Apologies for my cough during it and your patience.
Thank you for your patience with it.
But I hope we can, I want people to be happy and people to flourish.
And I think if we see sex as a couples to have simultaneous orgasms.
Pope St. John Paul II writes about that in Love and Responsibility.
The idea.
Yeah, I mean, imagine if we focus instead on healthy marriages and healthy sex in marriage and beautiful sex in marriage instead of always be simultaneous with the marriage.
That's a plus.
Do you think, wait, did you say can oral sex happen in marriage or is that not okay?
Oral sex can happen in marriage.
Well, you have to find those terms.
Well, I'll explain What I was going to continue with, I believe my position is that provided it leads to, you know, my view of my faith is provided it leads to the ultimate potential for procreative act.
But even if you are not aware of that, even if you thought that oral copulation is fine in marriage, it wouldn't follow your ethic would include paying for porn.
You don't have to agree with me on that to say sex work is bad.
So, yeah, so I would just, again, thank you everybody for coming here.
I would just say that this isn't to say there are no harms associated with sex work.
This is just to say that just because there are some harms associated, just like with the Second Amendment, just like with the First Amendment, when people, societies that give people the freedom in order to, in order to control their sexual lives the way they see fit, tend to do better anytime the majority of the data shows that when you try to ban these things or when you try to restrict these things or when you don't see sex work as work, it leads to more negative outcomes than good.
I would also say that the way sexual repression and those types of things, seeing sex as this thing and then anything outside of that is supposed to be bad and terrible, does lead to negative consequences.
Repression doesn't seem repression causes a lot of the same problem people say porn does, like erectile dysfunction, negative body image issues, shame, et cetera.
And if you look at like the states and the areas that consume the most porn, it is the most religious states.
So this idea, it's really fine and dandy to say sex should be this thing and no one should have it outside.
This is just not the reality.
The reality is people do seek out this stuff and people are going to do this and there are people who are going to be willing to provide it even if they would rather be rock stars if they had the choice.
So the question is, how can we make it so that this thing is the least damaging to society possible and that is to accept it and to not criminalize it and demonize sex outside of marriage, whatever.
Destiny, your closing statements.
Yeah, thanks for the conversation.
We didn't really get to it, but I feel like a lot of this conversation ends up grounding out in what we view sex as being for, which we didn't really talk about at all because we kind of went into all the data and the stats.
Personally, I think that even if the data in the stats showed that recreational sex was good, I don't think that would change either of your guys' positions at all.
If more people reported happier sexual activities or if marriage I saved more people had more recreational sex, I don't think that would change either of your positions.
The thing that scares me, I guess, about somebody being critical of a consensual-based position, figuring out if activities are moral or immoral is if they reject that framework and instead they go with what they call their own moral framework.
I think that very quickly you can get to a person saying, well, alcohol should be immoral.
There's no reason to drink ever.
Does it really help?
And it leads to all these negative outcomes, like car accidents and alcoholism and abuse and gambling is no good.
Obviously, you're wasting your money.
Sugar is bad.
Look at obesity rates, cardiovascular disease killing everybody.
Video games are horrible.
It's a waste of time for kids.
They should be playing sports or they should be doing things outside.
There's like marijuana is horrible.
The Olympics are horrible.
The athletes are too young.
It does damage their body.
Like, I think we can get into this world.
We can very quickly say that all of these things, because we can't trace a particular good, and then we can look at all these negative outcomes.
We can say these things are bad.
I think it's better to look at a healthier way to build ways that we can interact with each other in society.
I think that a consent-based form where we consent to activities, and if somebody wants to sell sex and they can do it in a healthy way, and somebody wants to buy it, they can do it in a healthy way.
I don't think we should get in front of that or in between that transaction and be sure that people conduct themselves the way that they want to, assuming there aren't these mass horrible outcomes happening in society.
That was beautiful.
That was beautiful.
Thank you, everybody, for joining us.
Okay, guys, last call.
Hit the like button, please, on your way out.
Thank you for tuning in tonight.
You could have been anywhere in the world, but you're here with us.
We appreciate that.
Thank you to everyone who super chats and donates and supports the show.
Thank you to the wonderful panel for making it out tonight, guys.
Really appreciate it.
Well, maybe a round two, maybe a different topic.
If you're, oh, let's see.
We're going to be live again, 5 p.m. Pacific on Sunday.
Oh, I do want to say one thing I want to thank you guys.
Funny, a different topic.
I do think it's interesting.
We didn't get a chance to have any common ground, but I do think between this table, a lot of us have common ground.
There's a group of people on the internet, men, who might say, yeah, the promiscuity and these sorts of things, it's okay for, like, it's the position between ours.
You're saying it's okay for everybody.
We're saying it's bad for everybody.
They're saying it's bad for women, good for men.
I think we actually would have common ground.
We all agree that that's actually a bad position.
So I'm sorry, I just wanted to throw out there actually a common ground between us that that's an untenable position.
Should we just tag on the next 30 minutes and just talk about abortion?
But that's a 30 minutes.
That's a teaser.
Maybe we could have an even friendlier conversation about that in other times.
Okay.
Because a lot of people have been asking for another Destiny and Lila.
Abortion debate.
Yeah.
Oh, well, I got eight hours for tomorrow.
Anyways, guys, we'll be live again Sunday at 5 p.m. Pacific.
I might try to convince Destiny to do a one-on-one interview tonight after the show.
We'll see.
I don't know.
What's your chat on your phone?
Is that a question?
Is that DG?
What are they called?
DDLG, Big Daddy, Little Girl, isn't it?
Oh, my God.
Okay, okay.
If I were to ask them, like, can you pull out your phone?
Like, are they down to have you do a like?
I have a dinner date at 8:30 that I'm on my way to right now.
Is it with a man or a woman?
It's with a woman.
I don't know.
I don't see it.
I thought we were going to get dinner.
Not like a date, but I thought.
I love you.
Good talk.
All right, guys.
We'll see you again Sunday, 5 p.m. Pacific.
07's in the chat.
Good night, guys.
▲
Export Selection