Wow, Anti-Porners cover a lot of ground when they want to turn a porn-related issue into something much larger...
As Jacqueline S. Homan, has it:
'Recently, Jenna Jameson announced with much reluctance that she was
returning to porn, citing financial hardship as the reason. What she did
not say was equally important: no other options for earning a
decent living in a real job with dignity was afforded to her due to her
“past” — something that sex trafficking victims, most of us who are much
poorer than Jenna Jameson ever was, are keenly aware of.'
Who would have thought that Jenna Jameson's decision to return to porn would be comparable to the plight of sex trafficking victims?
Anyone with an ounce of compassion might posit that the two situations are incomparable; they both involve sex, but that is about as far as the comparison goes. Surely we should have enough respect for both Jenna's individual situation and the horrible experiences that each sex trafficking victim undergoes to treat each as significant in their own right, rather than conflating them?
If one is seriously invested in changing the plight of persons who have been involved in sex trafficking, then one should engage with sex trafficking and persons who have experienced sex trafficking rather than pointing towards tangential examples. The comparison between the most successful porn star of her era and an anonymous sex trafficking victim is flawed.
Homan ought to be ashamed in using both Jameson and sex trafficking victims as a means to an end: vilifying a genre (porn) that Homan finds distasteful. Much more evidence of compassion towards individuals is needed before Homan's alleged goal - protecting people - becomes convincing.
I fear that Jameson and sex trafficking victims are instead being used by Homan and others to forward a taste agenda.
No comments:
Post a Comment