Anora‘s Complex Marriage Commentary Isn’t Worth Seeing All That Skin

If Anora has any redeeming value, it’s in its unintended commentary on the sad state of marriage and relationships.

Just Like Prostitution, There’s No First Amendment Right To Pornography

The First Amendment doesn't protect sexual abuse images. Pornography is not speech. It is prostitution and must be abolished.

How Trump’s Second Administration Can Take Down The Porn Industry

To make America great again, we must be bold and brave enough to go on offense against obscenity.

SCOTUS to hear radicals' challenge to Texas law that protects kids from the ravages of pornography



The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in the case Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton, which concerns commercial entities' ability to peddle graphic and often brutal pornographic content online without ensuring that impressionable children are not among their users.

The outcome of this case could prove consequential, not just for the porn industry and the well-being of American children nationwide but for social media and other platforms where age restrictions could also play a role in preventing the corruption of youth.

Jon Schweppe, policy director at the American Principles Project, which filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court supporting Texas' law, told Blaze News, "We have 19 states that have passed these bills. 83% of the country supports age verification, so there's no question that this is something that the people and their legislatures want, and now it's up to the court to decide whether it wants to be in the way of that or not — and I don't think they will."

Texas is among the many red states that have passed age verification laws in recent years to protect children from harmful content online.

In the case of the Lone Star State's law, HB 1181, commercial entities that publish or distribute sexual material harmful to minors must verify that individuals attempting to access that material are at least 18 years old or older. Failure to do so could result in civil penalties. Additionally, pornography peddlers must display health warnings noting that "pornography is potentially biologically addictive, is proven to harm human brain development, desensitizes brain reward circuits, increases conditioned responses, and weakens brain function."

The legal blog Howe on the Court noted that after Texas successfully passed HB 1181 in June 2023, a smut-industry trade association challenged its enforcement, claiming that the age verification violated the First Amendment by impacting adults' access to constitutionally protected expression.

Whereas a federal district court obliged the pornographers, temporarily preventing the enforcement of the law and suggesting that it was identical to the Child Online Protection Act — which the Supreme Court indicated was likely unconstitutional in Ashcroft v. ACLU — the U.S Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit lifted the injunction, leaning on the Supreme Court's 1968 decision in Ginsberg v. New York that cleared the way for states to restrict minors' access to harmful sexual material.

The case has now been kicked to the Supreme Court, which rejected a request last year to reinstate the lesser court's injunction against the Texas law.

'There's no way ... that if you can't age-verify for porn, it's going to be constitutional to age-verify for social media.'

Brad Littlejohn, a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, told Blaze News that the case before the court primarily concerns which standard of review the court of appeals should have applied to determine whether the injunction should stand — rational basis or strict scrutiny. The Free Speech Coalition, which advocates for pornographers and others in the sex industry, figures the Texas law should be subjected to strict scrutiny.

"If the court says, 'Yeah, strict scrutiny applies to any attempts to age-verify online,' then it's a lot harder going forward for states that are trying to protect minors from pornography or, just in general, any attempt to say, 'We think it's important to know whether or not someone online is a minor or not,'" said Littlejohn.

Schweppe indicated that if the pornography coalition wins in this case, there could be significant downstream effects, not just regarding pornography sites but also social media.

"There's no way, for example, that if you can't age-verify for porn, it's going to be constitutional to age-verify for social media," said Schweppe. "This case is really going to be determinative of what types of common-sense regulations we can put on the internet."

Littlejohn noted that the petitioners' "argument comes down to really camping out on the Ashcroft position 21 years ago."

Congress passed the Child Online Protect Act in 1998 with the aim of restricting minors' access to pornography online. The American Civil Liberties Union and various publishers sued to prevent its enforcement, arguing that the child protection law infringed upon their free speech rights. The case, Ashcroft v. the ACLU, ended up before the Supreme Court, which ultimately held in a 5-4 ruling that Congress had failed to demonstrate that the requirements under the law were more effective than other means of protecting kids from pornography online.

"They basically say that nothing has changed in the meantime. The biggest part of the Ashcroft claim was that age verification technology was not really viable to do it in a way that was privacy-preserving, and that may have been true in 2004. It's ridiculous to say that is true in 2025," said Littlejohn. "The other thing about the Ashcroft case is that they said content filtering will work just fine. That was plausible in a world of mostly desktop computers, not plausible in the world where most households have dozens of internet devices."

The petitioners' case "relies on kind of saying, 'Let's put our heads in the sand and pretend nothing's changed since 2004 and let's just stick with that precedent,'" added Littlejohn.

"There's some misconceptions about age verification," said Schweppe. "People tend to think that it must mean only a state ID. And part of our arguments to the court is that the technology in 30 years has improved dramatically to the point now where you know they can actually verify your age without knowing who you are. They can do biometric scans. They can look at consumer data and determine if you're an adult or not."

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton noted in a May opposition brief that were the porn peddlers fighting the law "brick-and-mortar bookstores or sidewalk magazine stands, Ginsberg v. New York would permit Texas to require them to check the age of their customers before selling them pornography. Petitioners instead insist that because they have moved their business online, the First Amendment allows them to provide access to nearly inexhaustible amounts of obscenity to any child with a smartphone."

Paxton stressed that "far from prohibiting a substantial amount of protected speech, [HB 1181] does not prohibit speech at all but rather only requires pornographers to check the ages of their users."

Texas maintains that the law is essential because the proliferation of smartphones and the overabundance of pornography have led to a public health crisis.

Porn is 'associated with the erosion of the quality of men's sex lives ... lower levels of sexual self-competence, impaired sexual functioning, and decreased partner-reported sexual satisfaction.'

Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah), Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), and 20 other Republican lawmakers in the U.S. Senate and House hammered this point home in a November court brief, noting that since the high court's 2004 ruling in Ashcroft, smartphones are now everywhere and have exponentially increased in capability, providing children fast access to pornography glamorizing rape, incest, and other forms of physical abuse, effectively harming and desensitizing generations of Americans.

"H.B. 1181 is a constitutional exercise of state power under any relevant standard of review. But subjecting such age verification laws to strict scrutiny could unduly hamstring amici and their states' ability to pass laws," continued the lawmakers. "Internet pornography is a plague that causes harm to millions of American children. This case is about federal and state legislatures' power to protect children from exposure to online pornography. This Court should reaffirm its long-standing rule that the government can prohibit the dissemination of pornography to children by imposing age-access restrictions on distributors."

There is plenty of scientific literature indicating that pornography wreaks havoc on viewers' minds and health, particularly that of young people.

A June 2023 Israeli study published in the scientific journal Body Image indicated a link between pornography consumption and both negative body image and the increased severity of eating disorder symptoms.

A February 2022 study published in the journal Psychological Medicine found that porn is "associated with the erosion of the quality of men's sex lives" — "associated with lower levels of sexual self-competence, impaired sexual functioning, and decreased partner-reported sexual satisfaction."

The Australian government determined that pornography consumption by young people has served to "normalize sexual violence and contribute to unrealistic understandings of sex and sexuality."

A 2014 study revealed that watching porn actually could shrink a part of the brain linked to pleasure.

Littlejohn noted that since the case before the court concerns the narrow question of whether to uphold the preliminary injunction against the law as well as which standard of review should be applied to determine whether the injunction should stand — rational basis or strict scrutiny — there "could be a whole other stage where the law is tried on the merits."

"So it's quite possible the court gives a decision that doesn't really give a clear victory and kind of kicks the can down the road," added Littlejohn.

"We're optimistic," said Schweppe. "We think that the court will basically overturn previous precedent they have. If you look at Reno v. ACLU and Ashcroft v. ACLU, the court elevated what they would consider the free speech concerns of adults over the compelling state interest of protecting kids. Obviously that hasn't worked out very well, so we're asking the court to review a law that was similar to the law they struck down in the 1990s."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

David French: Protecting Kids Online Can’t Impede Adults’ Porn Consumption

David French is not 'principled' for hinging his support for age verification laws on the condition that adults still get to consume damaging X-rated content, however, whenever, and wherever they’d like.

Biblical truth outshines feminist fiction in Lily Phillips’ OnlyFans stunt



The reaction to the OnlyFans model who recently slept with 100 men in a single day is a needed reminder that feminist propaganda is no match for biblical truth. Lily Phillips is the 23-year-old British woman who recently filmed herself having sex with dozens of strangers and posted it to her OnlyFans page. But the YouTube documentary about her stunt sparked intense reaction online when it was released in early December.

Despite decades of feminists trying to convince the public that women should — and can — have sex just like men, I didn’t see a single think piece claiming Phillips as an exemplar of sex positivity. In fact, several female commentators wanted to shift attention to the men who participated in Lily’s experiment.

Lily Phillips decided to play with fire and is feeling the burn right now. Let’s hope she will come to her senses before she is completely consumed.

This didn’t surprise me one bit. Many women want every “privilege” they associate with being a man — except being responsible for their actions. Yes, Phillips was visibly shaken after having sex with 100 men in a day, but she was no victim. She came up with the idea, recruited the men, and posted her activity on her OnlyFans page.

If Andrew Tate said he wanted to sleep with 100 women in a day, no one would have a problem criticizing him for being a sex-crazed degenerate. To make things worse, Lily Phillips is now planning to have sex with 1,000 men in early 2025 in an attempt to break a world record.

The women whose first impulse was to criticize the men who participated in Phillips’ self-degradation were tacitly acknowledging that attempts to reclaim the word “slut” and declarations that “sex work is work” are lies. Despite decades of social conditioning meant to convince us that men and women are identical sexual beings, deep down they believe those men should have protected Lily from herself.

They are right. I would be ashamed of my sons if they walked into a room with condoms strewn on the floor to participate in something so degrading, but the men who participated didn’t show their faces or allow their real voices to be broadcast.

Lily is the person trying to become famous for selling sex, and the physical consequences of her actions are likely the least of her worries. She already admitted feeling a sense of shame over her chosen “career” path. She will likely find it hard to find a decent man willing to marry her. Many people will hear her confessions and think they are a sign that society needs to become more tolerant and accepting. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

The revulsion people feel when reading Lily’s story — and the conflicted emotions she expressed in the documentary — are signs of a conscience that has not been completely destroyed.

On a personal level, the news really is bad for Lily Phillips. She sounded like a woman whose soul died in that room.

Thankfully, Christians are made spiritually alive through Jesus. As it says in John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” This is the good news that she needs to hear.

Some people claim to believe in God but think Christ’s atonement for sin only covers the minor, private sins. When it comes to strippers, prostitutes, fornicators, adulterers, or homosexuals, they assume some people are too far gone for God to save.

The apostle Paul certainly wasn’t one of these people. After rattling off a list of sins that keep people in spiritual bondage, he utters six of the most important words in the Bible: “And such were some of you.” Lily Phillips hasn’t done anything in front of a camera for money that disqualifies her from receiving the forgiveness God promises to every person who turns from sin to follow Jesus Christ.

The responses to Lily Phillips were not just a repudiation of second-wave feminism. They were also a useful reminder that atheism can attempt to explain the origins of human life but has no answer for the source of human worth. If humans are simply evolved creatures who make their own choices and define their own reality, nothing would justify the reactions provoked by a woman having sex with 100 men in a day.

People who truly believe Lily Phillips and the men who subscribe to her content are no more than apes with agency wouldn’t assign any moral value to what they are doing. They would nod in agreement when she refers to herself as a feminist and explains her decision to profit from the men sexualizing her.

But Christians who believe men and women are made in the image of God know that dignity and worth come from our creator — not our bank accounts or subscriber counts. They know that sex creates a powerful connection between a man and a woman, which is why it’s meant for a husband and wife within a marriage covenant.

A flame can warm a home when it’s contained in a fireplace but will destroy a house if it escapes its proper place. In the same way, sex creates a sense of security and closeness when enjoyed within marriage but leads to a very different set of emotions outside that context. Lily Phillips decided to play with fire and is feeling the burn right now. Let’s hope she will come to her senses before she is completely consumed.

'Wicked' games: Mattel makes mortified mea culpa after porn promo mix-up



Mattel "deeply regrets" printing a link to a pornographic website on the packaging for a "Wicked" doll aimed at children.

The URL misprint linked to a porn site that requires people to be 18 years or older to enter. Barbie toy producer Mattel has issued an apology after customers noticed that its "Wicked" dolls mistakenly directed customers to the website of the Wicked Pictures pornographic movie studio, instead of the correct WickedMovie.com site.

The 'Wicked' dolls are listed on eBay for as much as $350.

Mattel released a statement on the X-rated error to the Hollywood Reporter on Sunday: "Mattel was made aware of a misprint on the packaging of the Mattel Wicked collection dolls, primarily sold in the U.S., which intended to direct consumers to the official WickedMovie.com landing page."

"We deeply regret this unfortunate error and are taking immediate action to remedy this," the toy company said. "Parents are advised that the misprinted, incorrect website is not appropriate for children."

Mattel added, "Consumers who already have the product are advised to discard the product packaging or obscure the link and may contact Mattel Customer Service for further information."

Users on social media shared photos and videos of the salacious slip-up.

The dolls are advertised for children aged four and up.

Mattel said the company is in the process of yanking the toys from the shelves at retailers, including Amazon, Target, Barnes & Noble, and Walmart.

While the "Wicked" dolls retail for around $25, the accidentally adult versions have already been listed on eBay for as much as $350.

"Inspired by Universal Pictures' 'Wicked,' the singing Glinda fashion doll captures the lovable, memorable moment from the film," the description of the doll read on Mattel's website. "Press the button and sing along with clips of her iconic song, 'Popular.' The kind-hearted character wears a removable, soft pink gown accessorized with hairclips and shoes. Her long, blonde hair completes the movie look for endless styling fun!"

"Highlighting the magic of sisterhood and friendship, 'Wicked' dolls make an inspiring gift for kids to play out their biggest dreams," the toy company added. "Glinda doll wears a soft, removable, pink ombre dress with puff sleeves and features her long blonde hair – use her hair clip accessories to create even more Glinda-fied styles and looks!"

The dolls were released to coincide with the release of Universal's adaptation of the Tony Award-winning Broadway musical on Nov. 22. "Wicked" features Grammy and Tony-winning actress Cynthia Erivo as Elphaba and Grammy-winning, multi-platinum singer Ariana Grande as Glinda.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Gross new porn ad from PAC is Dems' most desperate attempt yet to get out the vote



Progress Action Fund, a leftist political action committee backed by LinkedIn co-founder and Microsoft board member Reid Hoffman, joined the Democratic group Defend the Vote in pushing another attack ad in swing states last week. While the ad seeks to vilify Republican lawmakers, it ostensibly does a better job of undermining Democrats, insinuating that theirs is the party for porn-addicted onanists.

The PAF's 30-second ad, titled "Republicans Rubbing You The Wrong Way," shows a man pleasuring himself while unblinkingly watching pornography on his phone. A character wearing a suit and red tie, identified as a Republican congressman, interrupts the solitary engagement and notifies the masturbator, "Now that we're in charge, we're banning porn nationwide."

"You can't tell me what to do!" says the masturbator. "Get out of my bedroom, you creep!"

"I won the last election, so it's my decision. I'm just going to watch and make sure you don't finish illegally," the Republican character adds, referring to self-gratification.

The PAF indicated that the ad is part of a $2.5 million ad buy and will run on TVs, streaming services, and online platforms in all seven swing states. The PAC notes on its site that it is running ads "in states Vice President Harris must win that also have competitive House & Senate races."

The Hill reported that the ad is targeted toward young men who are abandoning the Democratic Party in droves and increasingly signaling support for President Donald Trump. The apparent hope is that it would reinforce the efforts of the Harris campaign, which is presently trying to drum up support among the disenchanted demographic with ads on sports-betting platforms and on gaming sites, as well as with the promise of nationally legalized marijuana.

'"Incels for Kamala" isn't a campaign strategy I saw coming.'

Nick Knudsen, executive director of the Democrat-aligned activist outfit DemCast USA, noted on X, "Just found out this ad when tested moves under-30-men 3.5 points away from Donald Trump. That's MASSIVE! Please share widely."

Knudsen noted further, "They're running it with a massive ad buy in PA."

Joe Jacobson, founder of PAF, said in a statement, "As a 30-year-old guy myself, the GOP's insistence on legislating our personal lives and decisions is disturbing and unacceptable. That is why we're working to ensure everyone knows that the G.O.P really stands for 'Grand Old Perverts.'"

The threat of a nationwide porn ban contained within Jacobson's ad is pure fantasy, reliant upon a politically expedient distortion of Republican child-protection initiatives across the country.

Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nebraska, North Carolina, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, and Virginia are among the states that have passed laws requiring that porn websites verify users' ages in an effort to protect children from pornography — especially from the violent varieties on foreign-based sites such as Pornhub, whose parent company was recently accused of profiting from child sex abuse and admitted last year to receiving proceeds from sex trafficking.

Lawmakers have argued that it's in the interest of public health to implement such protections for American children.

A 2023 Israeli study published in the scientific journal Body Image indicated a link between pornography consumption and negative body image as well as with increased severity of eating disorder symptoms.

A February 2022 study published in the journal Psychological Medicine found that porn is "associated with the erosion of the quality of men's sex lives" and "associated with lower levels of sexual self-competence, impaired sexual functioning, and decreased partner-reported sexual satisfaction," as Blaze News previously reported.

The Australian government found that pornography consumption by young people has served to "normalise sexual violence and contribute to unrealistic understandings of sex and sexuality."

A 2014 study indicated that watching porn actually could shrink a part of the brain linked to pleasure.

Pornhub, not Republican lawmakers, decided to block access to its content in various states rather than protect children from these devastating consequences. PAF appears keen to gloss over the difference in hopes of helping Democrats in states like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Conservative commentator Todd Starnes tweeted, "Democrats are running ads in swing states promoting pornography. Their closing argument to voters is that Kamala Harris and Democrats are pro-abortion, pro-porn and Trump is Hitler."

One user noted, "'Incels for Kamala!' isn't a campaign strategy I saw coming, but I guess nothing surprises me anymore."

Libby Emmons, the Post Millennial's editor in chief, noted, "Young men deserve more."

All-American swim star Riley Gaines tweeted, "Do you need more proof these people are sick and deranged?"

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!