Every day, the media mentions how Stormy Daniels was paid $130,000 to keep quiet about her alleged sexual relationship with Donald Trump.
But regardless of the media outlet, you never see her name without the adjective “porn actress” or “adult film star.” Why say that instead of just “actress”? Why keep identifying her at all—is there anyone who doesn’t know what she does for a living?
And what would the media say if she were a supermarket checker or dentist—how frequently would they describe her that way?
Day after day, the Right repeats “porn actress” to discredit Daniels, while the Left repeats “porn actress” to discredit Trump. The Right uses “porn actress” to dismiss her as a worthless floozy whose testimony doesn’t matter. The Left uses “porn actress” to make his crime seem even more tawdry than it actually is.
Meanwhile, those same people–tens of millions of people on both the Right and Left–use and enjoy porn, even while using the word as an insult. It’s like looking down your nose at the housekeeper who raises your kid.
When people describe something as akin to porn, they invariably mean to disparage or sleazify it: Oh, that book is just porn. Oh, that movie is just porn. That revealing outfit she wears at the gym—what, does she think she’s in a porn film?
An example just last week occurred in the Tallahassee (FL) Classical School. Its principal resigned after some parents were angered that sixth graders were shown a photo of the nude Renaissance sculpture David. Predictably, these parents called the magnificent Biblical-themed statue “pornographic.”
Porn, of course, is specifically designed to sexually arouse. Is there a healthy person alive who looks at that statue and gets sexually aroused? Absolutely not. And even if some 11-year-old does look at a photo of the marble and thinks about penises, is that the same as getting aroused? Of course not.
So let the public say what it means instead of angrily dismissing stuff as “just porn”: Oh, that statue of a nude biblical warrior is meant to sexually arouse. Oh, that book about where do babies come from is meant to sexually arouse. Oh, that picture of two dads holding hands is meant to sexually arouse.
You can immediately see how ridiculous it is to accuse stuff of being “porn” if it isn’t actually porn.
Conservatives will never scold each other for sexualizing non-sexual things. But where are all the progressives who should be complaining that Daniels’ reputation is being impugned simply because she has sex on camera? And where are all the porn consumers demanding that someone who performs solely for their pleasure should be respected?
As always, porn—one of history’s most successful consumer products—loses out because none of its customers are willing to stand up and say “I use the stuff.” As a result, laws and customs can limit its legitimacy and availability, with no one except First Amendment lawyers to defend it. Consumers of, say, avocados, Teslas, or electric bikes—which added together are far fewer than porn consumers—would never put up with such government regulation without input from those industries and their customers.
What kind of woman acts in porn films? She’s someone’s sister, someone’s daughter, and frequently someone’s girlfriend or wife. Maybe she’s honest, maybe not—exactly like cab drivers, nurses, engineers, or letter carriers. Let the legal system decide, rather than simply assume.
And what kind of woman (allegedly) gets sexually involved with Donald Trump? In this case, someone’s wife, someone’s mother, and an award-winning equestrian. But note that Daniels isn’t being tried for a crime, and she isn’t being accused of falsifying business records or evading taxes.
All she’s done is provide high-quality sexually-themed entertainment for 70 or 80 million Americans. You can call her a liar if you don’t believe her, but don’t use “porn actress” to insult her.