Is this the Guardian or the Daily Mail?

How does the article scream 'not liberal'?

Where in the article does it advocate porn censorship?

Has it been listed under news?

The article you cite can be found under ''Life & Style'', not ''News''.

Since the Guardian has multiple functions (it's not just a news website) you should expect article that are not news stories.

Ah ok, sorry I misunderstood you there.

It seems to advocate shaming people who like porn, or have anything to do with its production. It ignores the opinions of hundreds of porn stars who speak out about how they enjoy making porn, as if their opinions don't matter. I bet if the porn industry was mostly focused on male actors, they'd believe them if they said they enjoy it. Liberalism should encompass accepting people no matter their sexual persuasion. If some people find gratification from people watching them have sex, and if some people find gratification from watching sex, they should not have to be pressured into feeling ashamed about it. There are some very ethical studios out there now such as X-Art which provide pornography that appeals to both men and women, and which treats it's actors very well. Sure if you're watching some Russian bondage porn you might be watching something that wasn't made ethically, but not everyone, or even most people, who watch porn watches that stuff. Most people who watch porn actually search for specific porn stars. It's also worth noting that sites such as Pornhub have become very careful about not featuring porn which is unethical, and have banned search terms such as 'rape'.

Well, whether you call it news or not, it's still a story, and it's still a really crappy one to use as an example of why porn is bad. It's one anecdotal story for Christ sake.

The article did not advocate shaming people who like porn. The article was just one persons advice to another. This included the opinion that porn is harmful to culture. At no point did the writer shame anyone for watching porn.

The writer celebrated the fact that the 17 year old made her own decision to leave her boyfriend. That sounds quite liberal to me.



Indeed. Mariella did not provide a good arguement against the use of porn.

That being said I see no reason to ask as if this should be news when it clearly wasn't writen to be so.

Not a problem, having seen your posts from time to time, I cannot foresee there being much that we would disagree on

Not as bad as when they publish jihadists.

It seems that the Guardian loves defending fascist ideologies, ignoring the violence against Jews by Muslims across Europe, and encouraging people to shun those for their sexual persuasions. so le liberal.

Well it doesn't apply its principles equally to everyone, which means that it doesn't really have any principles.

The daily mail is no better. It supported fascists for a while before the war.

It's an opinion piece and the main focus is probably actually on congratulating the girl for standing up for herself, not on the negative effects of porn. You do seem to be slightly aggressive towards this article.

I don't think there's a total lack of evidence about the porn thing though.

The Daily Mail is worse, but luckily it's not considered credible.

The Guardian is a worse than the Mail. The Guardian gets away with so much hate speech and conspiracy theory simply because its targets are white people.

The Guardian is not liberal. Spiked Online, is the closet thing to a liberal publication out there. Unlike the Guardian, its dedicated to free speech.

http://www.spiked-online.com

It recently did a brilliant analysis of one of the Guardians writers, Owen Jones.

http://www.spiked-online.com/review_of_books/article/the-middle-class-moralism-of-owen-jones/15775

There's just something about saying that porn is 'poisoning society' that sounds a tad hyperbolic and sensationalist to me. A bit like many other articles in the Guardian, which is why I find it so frustrating that it is considered so credible. Just my two cents though.