The Internet Is for Porn(themargins.substack.com)
themargins.substack.com
The Internet Is for Porn
https://themargins.substack.com/p/the-internet-is-for-porn
457 comments
This feminist take was definitely uncalled for in this article. The author's bias about how the women, _who are actually getting monetarily compensated_, are the victims completely misses the costs to the purchasers, who are almost all men, in terms of their money and the neurologic changes that such sex work consumption has. Having the "algorithm" suggesting and enticing these men back to buy more subscriptions / pics or however it works on these things is just as much a negative side effect as the women experience in social stigma.
Wow. Are you really saying that the men who consume porn are equally victimized as actual sex workers, because of an algorithm?
In the sense that algorithms do nudge our behaviour in insidious ways, addicted consumers of porn can be seen as victims of a sort. But, to suggest that the social stigma associated with porn usage is equal, much less anywhere near approaching, or in the same order of magnitude of the social stigma that sex workers face, is just so incredibly wrong.
In the sense that algorithms do nudge our behaviour in insidious ways, addicted consumers of porn can be seen as victims of a sort. But, to suggest that the social stigma associated with porn usage is equal, much less anywhere near approaching, or in the same order of magnitude of the social stigma that sex workers face, is just so incredibly wrong.
I think you're right if you're only putting 1 sex worker and 1 porn addict on the scale, but I would imagine that for every sex worker there could be 100 porn addicts watching them, the math gets more tricky.
This is an interesting point. The problem, I think, is that as individuals, we only have feelings based on our own experiences.
So, perhaps in an aggregate sense, there is more suffering of all the men men who are slightly stigmatized because they watch too much porn. But, none of them feel this as acutely as the single single sex worker who can 1) probably never get a more "legitimate" job again 2) may not be there of her own free will (yes, even if she is getting paid) 3) may not have any support network because her family has cut her off because of what she does (this is common).
So, perhaps in an aggregate sense, there is more suffering of all the men men who are slightly stigmatized because they watch too much porn. But, none of them feel this as acutely as the single single sex worker who can 1) probably never get a more "legitimate" job again 2) may not be there of her own free will (yes, even if she is getting paid) 3) may not have any support network because her family has cut her off because of what she does (this is common).
If I understand it correctly, porn actors are adults, working under signed, legal contracts that specify, in extreme explicit details, exactly what they will be doing during a shoot. If they were actually forced to do it, then it would be a criminal act of rape, something that would very quickly bring down producers responsible for it. Do you have any evidence that porn actors in general are forced to work?
Check out Doe vs. Girlsdoporncom.
The decision finds that the company used manipulation and intimidation to force young women into signing contracts they weren't supposed to understand which were contrary to spoken agreements.
This company was big (maybe still is) and isn't an outlier in the space.
The decision finds that the company used manipulation and intimidation to force young women into signing contracts they weren't supposed to understand which were contrary to spoken agreements.
This company was big (maybe still is) and isn't an outlier in the space.
Actually that company is now dead, and one of the owners is an international fugitive.
A single example is not evidence for it happening in general. There are plenty examples of factories dangerously mistreating their workers. That doesn’t mean that they all do it or that it is common practice.
Username checks out.
So there is some sort of scale of victimhood, and everyone should measured against it?
Are men victims of their own biology? How come they're the ones that predominately, are they inherently evil and exploitive, is that what we should believe.
Whoa inventing moral codes is hard, i wonder how long it will take us to figure it out again.
Are men victims of their own biology? How come they're the ones that predominately, are they inherently evil and exploitive, is that what we should believe.
Whoa inventing moral codes is hard, i wonder how long it will take us to figure it out again.
> The author's bias about how the women, _who are actually getting monetarily compensated_, are the victims
Being monetarily compensated doesn't prevent being a victim, which is the basis of all labor protection legislation beyond “workers must get paid at least a token amount”.
Being monetarily compensated doesn't prevent being a victim, which is the basis of all labor protection legislation beyond “workers must get paid at least a token amount”.
If I understand it correctly, the sex workers are adults who has signed contracts to do a specific job for a specific amount of $ The same as a factory worker who might end up loosing their health or lives doing their job. What is the difference exactly?
> What is the difference exactly?
The difference is that when widespread systemic labor abuses are revealed in a manufacturing industry, people who aren't members of the capitalist class or spokespeople for the firms in the industry have no problem recognizing that the factory workers are victims.
The difference is that when widespread systemic labor abuses are revealed in a manufacturing industry, people who aren't members of the capitalist class or spokespeople for the firms in the industry have no problem recognizing that the factory workers are victims.
No one put a gun to that guy's head, society won't even ask him any questions about nor assume what he does in his personal time, whereas that same politeness doesn't extend to sex workers. That's just the tip of the iceberg as far as the difference between these two goes, as I see it
Well if we're going to go this route, no one put a gun to the girl's head either.
She just didn't want to work night shift at 7/11 for $10-$15 an hour. In Fort Worth, I've seen night shift "supervisors" for the convenience store where I usually stop for gas being offered $18-$22, starting salary. With 1 year experience. Yes, that's a shitty job, on a shitty shift, and the pay is nothing to write home about at $36,000 - $44,000 a year, but for someone with nothing more than a high school degree, and clearly a tremendous lack of applicable skills, it isn't terrible.
If these women want to do porn instead of slaving away at Walmart, hey, more power to them. I don't begrudge you your choice, but don't act like there's no alternative. Entirely too many people make the claim that "there are no jobs for me!" when what they mean is, "There aren't any jobs that I want to do, I'm not supposed to be a janitor, I'm supposed to be a TikTok star!!"
That's the big fucking lie our society has told people for the past 40+ years. Most of us, even most of us in high positions in respected companies, are easily replaceable cogs.
A lot of people were very concerned about Apple's future when Steve Jobs died. Looking at the M1 chip, it seems like Tim Cook and Apple will be just fine.
She just didn't want to work night shift at 7/11 for $10-$15 an hour. In Fort Worth, I've seen night shift "supervisors" for the convenience store where I usually stop for gas being offered $18-$22, starting salary. With 1 year experience. Yes, that's a shitty job, on a shitty shift, and the pay is nothing to write home about at $36,000 - $44,000 a year, but for someone with nothing more than a high school degree, and clearly a tremendous lack of applicable skills, it isn't terrible.
If these women want to do porn instead of slaving away at Walmart, hey, more power to them. I don't begrudge you your choice, but don't act like there's no alternative. Entirely too many people make the claim that "there are no jobs for me!" when what they mean is, "There aren't any jobs that I want to do, I'm not supposed to be a janitor, I'm supposed to be a TikTok star!!"
That's the big fucking lie our society has told people for the past 40+ years. Most of us, even most of us in high positions in respected companies, are easily replaceable cogs.
A lot of people were very concerned about Apple's future when Steve Jobs died. Looking at the M1 chip, it seems like Tim Cook and Apple will be just fine.
Yea no one wants to work at walmart and no one wants to shop at walmart, but hey look at how many walmarts there are. When people complain that there are no jobs they mean there are no meaningful careers, not that there aren't enough walmarts to work at.
Yeah, according to Keynes we were all supposed to have 15 hour work weeks by now... makes you wonder what exactly went wrong.
Keynes forgot about greed. He thought after making workers 2.5x more efficient the machine would be happy with still making 1x the product.
I really hope this isn't the ultimate answer, because if so, that's extremely disappointing.
Not really? I can't think of the last time a prominent newspaper named & shamed a random working man for spending money on porn, whereas that happened with the NY Post and a paramedic with an onlyfans just last week. Your view of reality is wildly distorted.
Nowhere in the comment you're replying to is it stated or even implied that men suffer a significant social stigma from consuming porn, nor that women DON'T suffer a social stigma for producing it. The viewpoint you describe is certainly twisted, but it hasn't actually been expressed by anyone.
> named & shamed a random working man for spending money on porn
How would they find out?
How would they find out?
Fargren(1)
lumberjack(3)
> It's such a primitive and toxic line of thinking
its especially a nonsense argument when you note that porn is one of the few industries with a huge pay gap - and in favor of women. its so significant that top tier actresses pay scale has a floor that is higher than the ceiling of the equivalent male talent.
its especially a nonsense argument when you note that porn is one of the few industries with a huge pay gap - and in favor of women. its so significant that top tier actresses pay scale has a floor that is higher than the ceiling of the equivalent male talent.
sure but the actors aren’t making the most money, the men running the companies are
Okay, think about the person who goes into porn.
Have you seen Hot Girls Wanted? What was the average salary of female porn talent, annually, again? Less than $40,000 if I recall correctly? If even that much? It might have been $35,000.
That's $17.50 an hour. That's a line worker at an injection molding plant making car parts. And that's a job that gets you health, dental, vision, life, short-term disability, long-term disability insurance, and a few other perks. That's in Arlington, TX. I know that because I have a family member who works there. She also gets every holiday that the corresponding GM assembly plant gets, because after all, why do they need to be at work if GM isn't making cars? And this is a job that is so "demanding", you don't even have to submit a resume. You literally just show up, take a drug test, get 2 hours of training in a classroom, get 4 hours of training on the factory floor, and you start the next day. She did.
If porn actors and actresses had the wherewithal to actually set up all the necessary shit to run their own studios... they wouldn't need to do porn.
You have to understand cameras, optics, lighting, video and sound editing, advertising, search engine optimization, website creation, front-end development, back-end development, etc. and so forth.
The "whole package" stack for a single person, or even a small group of people, wanting to get into porn, is significant. Anyone who has even a few of the skills I listed above, doesn't have to get fucked on camera for money.
Have you seen Hot Girls Wanted? What was the average salary of female porn talent, annually, again? Less than $40,000 if I recall correctly? If even that much? It might have been $35,000.
That's $17.50 an hour. That's a line worker at an injection molding plant making car parts. And that's a job that gets you health, dental, vision, life, short-term disability, long-term disability insurance, and a few other perks. That's in Arlington, TX. I know that because I have a family member who works there. She also gets every holiday that the corresponding GM assembly plant gets, because after all, why do they need to be at work if GM isn't making cars? And this is a job that is so "demanding", you don't even have to submit a resume. You literally just show up, take a drug test, get 2 hours of training in a classroom, get 4 hours of training on the factory floor, and you start the next day. She did.
If porn actors and actresses had the wherewithal to actually set up all the necessary shit to run their own studios... they wouldn't need to do porn.
You have to understand cameras, optics, lighting, video and sound editing, advertising, search engine optimization, website creation, front-end development, back-end development, etc. and so forth.
The "whole package" stack for a single person, or even a small group of people, wanting to get into porn, is significant. Anyone who has even a few of the skills I listed above, doesn't have to get fucked on camera for money.
>>they wouldn't need to do porn.
Why is it such an extremely hard to believe fact that maybe there are people out there that aren't doing it because they are desperate sluts that are failures of society and are actually doing it because its work that they enjoy.
Why is working at an injection molding plant making car parts such a better job? Seems extremely boring in comparison. The only real argument to make for it is that there are people out there who feel the need to shame people doing that kind of work and don't feel the need to do that for the person making auto parts.
The real comparison is also not the factory job, but the jobs that are like musicians and artists. Most of them know after a certain age they aren't going to get rich doing it but its work they enjoy. Some people get a little older and eventually decide to go for a different line of work but theres people that will shame the sex worker directing or doing scenes on the side (possibly even fire them from their job) but will praise the guy being in a Bob Dylan cover band with a couple of his friends.
Theres exploitation in the system that needs to be fixed but it seems like sites like OnlyFans giving the content creators choice are making steps towards that, as opposed to the others entrenched in the industry that are happy to take advantage of young people, something common in a lot of industries. Politicians, tech companies, other aspects of the entertainment idustry, have been happy to exploit unpaid and underpaid interns straight out of college. Nobody deserves to be exploited because they are young.
Why is it such an extremely hard to believe fact that maybe there are people out there that aren't doing it because they are desperate sluts that are failures of society and are actually doing it because its work that they enjoy.
Why is working at an injection molding plant making car parts such a better job? Seems extremely boring in comparison. The only real argument to make for it is that there are people out there who feel the need to shame people doing that kind of work and don't feel the need to do that for the person making auto parts.
The real comparison is also not the factory job, but the jobs that are like musicians and artists. Most of them know after a certain age they aren't going to get rich doing it but its work they enjoy. Some people get a little older and eventually decide to go for a different line of work but theres people that will shame the sex worker directing or doing scenes on the side (possibly even fire them from their job) but will praise the guy being in a Bob Dylan cover band with a couple of his friends.
Theres exploitation in the system that needs to be fixed but it seems like sites like OnlyFans giving the content creators choice are making steps towards that, as opposed to the others entrenched in the industry that are happy to take advantage of young people, something common in a lot of industries. Politicians, tech companies, other aspects of the entertainment idustry, have been happy to exploit unpaid and underpaid interns straight out of college. Nobody deserves to be exploited because they are young.
> Why is it such an extremely hard to believe fact that maybe there are people out there that aren't doing it because they are desperate sluts that are failures of society and are actually doing it because its work that they enjoy.
Probably because we're biologically programmed to understand that's not the case?
It boils down to a simple, but true, undeniable - and apparently for a lot of people, unpleasant - maxim from biology - Sperm are cheap, eggs are expensive.
There's a reason that male birds evolved colorful plumage and in many cases, elaborate dance displays. There's a reason the males of hundreds of thousands of other species have evolved to impress females of their species.
You may not like it. You may not agree with it. You may not condone it. But you're not going to change it. You don't have the power. The only thing that'll change this is time. Lots and lots of time. People think you can separate genetically reinforced biologically-ingrained biases from culture. You can't. You won't. No one can. It has to progress slowly, over time.
The world that many progressive people want may come to pass one day, but it won't be today, it won't be tomorrow, it won't be 10 years from now, it won't be 100 years from now.
Bookmark this comment and come back whenever you want. See how long it takes for the majority of society to shift. You'll have a very long wait.
Probably because we're biologically programmed to understand that's not the case?
It boils down to a simple, but true, undeniable - and apparently for a lot of people, unpleasant - maxim from biology - Sperm are cheap, eggs are expensive.
There's a reason that male birds evolved colorful plumage and in many cases, elaborate dance displays. There's a reason the males of hundreds of thousands of other species have evolved to impress females of their species.
You may not like it. You may not agree with it. You may not condone it. But you're not going to change it. You don't have the power. The only thing that'll change this is time. Lots and lots of time. People think you can separate genetically reinforced biologically-ingrained biases from culture. You can't. You won't. No one can. It has to progress slowly, over time.
The world that many progressive people want may come to pass one day, but it won't be today, it won't be tomorrow, it won't be 10 years from now, it won't be 100 years from now.
Bookmark this comment and come back whenever you want. See how long it takes for the majority of society to shift. You'll have a very long wait.
Birds had too different evolution, they have roughly equal hard skills, which isn't true for humans. For humans sperm and eggs are entertainment and are quite high on Maslow pyramid, but the lower levels are solved only by men, and women have only eggs to offer in exchange (also developed plumage), and that's how they adapted, for them sex isn't entertainment, but survival, i.e. they are evolutionarily programmed for prostitution. And sex workers do enjoy sex, like everyone. You better make attractiveness of sex work your point.
Society is shifting.
I have noticed huge changes in my life.
The bigotry and prejudice about sexual desire and sexual "acting out" may or may not be due to some fantasy about the relative price of sperm and eggs.
In other cultures, other places, other times that bigotry, prejudice, and shaming was/is not a thing.
A equally valid possibility is the shaming of sex work is due to misogyny. It is the powerful men brought down by the "sluts and whores". Hence the shaming.
I have a argument for that: In my country until recently it was a crime to offer sex for money but not pay money for sex. If the underlying cause was "relative cost" not misogyny then that difference would not exist
I have noticed huge changes in my life.
The bigotry and prejudice about sexual desire and sexual "acting out" may or may not be due to some fantasy about the relative price of sperm and eggs.
In other cultures, other places, other times that bigotry, prejudice, and shaming was/is not a thing.
A equally valid possibility is the shaming of sex work is due to misogyny. It is the powerful men brought down by the "sluts and whores". Hence the shaming.
I have a argument for that: In my country until recently it was a crime to offer sex for money but not pay money for sex. If the underlying cause was "relative cost" not misogyny then that difference would not exist
You think its shifting because you're operating on a human lifetime timescale. I'm operating on a million year timescale.
And don't think we can't move backwards from here... quickly, violently, and for many years, decades, even centuries. Its happened before with humanity. Who knows how many times before we had recorded records to reference?
And don't think we can't move backwards from here... quickly, violently, and for many years, decades, even centuries. Its happened before with humanity. Who knows how many times before we had recorded records to reference?
You clearly have very limited experience with woman. Claiming that all woman are or are not X (for any X) shows that your view of woman is simple enough to almost be a caricature. I am interested in what evidence you have for “we’re biologically programmed to understand ...” I have never heard or seen any evidence for that. So it would be interesting to see what evidence you have for such a strong broad statement?
> So it would be interesting to see what evidence you have for such a strong broad statement?
The entirety of the field of evolutionary psychology.
I had a huge post typed up, but I realize that because you immediately went on the attack:
> You clearly have very limited experience with woman.
You're not interested in actually learning anything. You think you already know. You think you've read all the literature. You actually think you're well-informed.
What you want is for people to shut the fuck up and agree with, because you don't want your worldview challenged.
> Claiming that all woman are or are not X (for any X) shows that your view of woman is simple enough to almost be a caricature.
You talk about being a caricature, then immediately go for a statement like this, which is a combination of the worst kind of pedantry and high-functional mental disability...
Here's one for you. Fact: Men are stronger than women. When a biologist says this, they don't mean every man is stronger than every woman. They mean almost all men are stronger than almost all women.
This is one, of many papers in the field: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0265407513487638
The entirety of the field of evolutionary psychology.
I had a huge post typed up, but I realize that because you immediately went on the attack:
> You clearly have very limited experience with woman.
You're not interested in actually learning anything. You think you already know. You think you've read all the literature. You actually think you're well-informed.
What you want is for people to shut the fuck up and agree with, because you don't want your worldview challenged.
> Claiming that all woman are or are not X (for any X) shows that your view of woman is simple enough to almost be a caricature.
You talk about being a caricature, then immediately go for a statement like this, which is a combination of the worst kind of pedantry and high-functional mental disability...
Here's one for you. Fact: Men are stronger than women. When a biologist says this, they don't mean every man is stronger than every woman. They mean almost all men are stronger than almost all women.
This is one, of many papers in the field: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0265407513487638
Here is a different way to put it: I don’t recognise woman that I have known, loved, made love to etc. in your description of woman. Which makes me believe that your arguments are not correct for woman in general. Unless of course the woman in my life (by some extraordinary coincidence) happens to be the only woman on the planet not fitting into your description. Highly unlikely but of course possible. I by the way recommend reading the papers showing that most “evidence” in Psychology is not reproducible i.e. not scientific. I would caution against basing your conclusions on them.
i dont know why you are downvoted. i upvoted you. and bookmarked.
having said that: gender is a spectrum. it's very fluid. it's true for all animals. including humans. but evolution takes millions of years. not the average human lifespan.
unless. we modify it but it wont be natural selection that we can witness in our lifetimes.
having said that: gender is a spectrum. it's very fluid. it's true for all animals. including humans. but evolution takes millions of years. not the average human lifespan.
unless. we modify it but it wont be natural selection that we can witness in our lifetimes.
The people running the companies provide something that requires some capital investment and moderate technical sophistication. Meanwhile most people, and actually most sexual life forms in this planet, can perform sex. Unless sex workers unionize supply/demand economics will crush them. I don't see the need to involve male/female dominance in companies to find an explanation, but it seems fashionable nowadays.
Yeah like, cherry picking a stat in a huge way. But even worse I think it misses the point that porn is super exploitative to the performers.
Yeah it's such a dumb argument. The obvious explanation is that all of those companies are ad supported, and advertisers don't want to advertise next to porn. If advertisers suddenly wanted to advertise on porn pages, how many seconds do you think it would take for FB to change that policy? But let's pretend it's because they're men.
Welcome to 2020 where identity politics is the name of the game. It seems everything these days can be explained based on your race/gender and yet this is supposedly the most "woke" time ever. Cue the downvotes.
I want you to know that any downvotes might have less to do with 2020 or identity politics and more so your sloppy style of conversation. Throwing out a wildly undifferentiated blanket statement and ending on a passive aggressive "cue the downvotes" is bad content in my opinion.
It enjoy being subjected to different views. I hope we can uphold a certain standard for expressing them around here.
It enjoy being subjected to different views. I hope we can uphold a certain standard for expressing them around here.
I want you to know that my "blanket statement" (as you label it) was itself a criticism of "blanket" generalizations we see all too often in this era of identity politics. How telling that you had nothing to say about the rampant use of identity politics to target and discredit people, but did feel it important to express your discontent with my "content".
[deleted]
SV doesn’t care about porn, because it’s a bad PR, at least for now. There’s no “Larry Flynt” kind of guy there, that would like to move it forward. Or have courage to fight for it.
Other then reputation nightmare of doing that kind of business, most of SV would jump in without hesitation. There’s shit tone of money in it, worth of grabbing for them... :)
Other then reputation nightmare of doing that kind of business, most of SV would jump in without hesitation. There’s shit tone of money in it, worth of grabbing for them... :)
When you're a Social Justice Hammer, everything looks like an Oppression Nail.
You may be right, but it seems plausible that men are also much less likely to understand the potential for and existence of abuse that happens to women in the porn industry.
So it may not be that they don't care about women. Simply that they don't understand and recognize the harm to women.
So it may not be that they don't care about women. Simply that they don't understand and recognize the harm to women.
I think that the harm, abuse, maiming and occasional deaths happening to millions of factory workers is well understood. However we are doing very little to seriously address it. I haven’t heard any stories of woman loosing their arms, legs, or lives shooting porn in the porn industry. Have you?
Dude, the labor movement has been around for over a hundred years. We've made mind blowing progress on workers' rights. There hasn't been anything close to this for sex workers.
alisonkisk(3)
When all you have is a hammer....
I think that the argument is that male tech workers consume porn as much as other men and therefore solving issues of porn industry could be solving issues they have too. E.g. selfishness of tech males should lead them to care about porn.
Your contra argument implicitly assumes that tech makes are special kind of males that don't use porn.
Your contra argument implicitly assumes that tech makes are special kind of males that don't use porn.
Essential issue isn't about solving their problems. Essential issue is about making them more money. Which opportunity makes them the largest amount of money, with the least amount of risk to their investment?
Porn doesn't compare favorably to their other opportunities. Full Stop.
If it did compare favorably, they would be putting money and resources in porn.
Porn doesn't compare favorably to their other opportunities. Full Stop.
If it did compare favorably, they would be putting money and resources in porn.
One of the biggest examples of this is probably Tumblr banning and removing porn and other NSFW content from their platform.
The argument holds no water and it is pretty disgusting of this uber-for-porn pimp to pretend he is doing good.
Porn is like weed. If you want to consume it ethically you need to verify your sources. These cam sites have their own serious exploitation issues that are completely being ignored.
If you go on reddit you can find many threads discussing cam girls who are suspected to either be underage or be literal sex slaves.
There are actual ethical porn producers of various flavours (also featured on HN quite a few times). Onlyfans is not one of them.
If you go on reddit you can find many threads discussing cam girls who are suspected to either be underage or be literal sex slaves.
There are actual ethical porn producers of various flavours (also featured on HN quite a few times). Onlyfans is not one of them.
Like weed, which many people actually grow themselves?
Not all porn is created for sale. Modulo all the revenge porn stuff... there’s plenty of people creating their own “personal” porn. From candid selfies shared only with a partner to full on private amateur movie collections.
Porn always reminds me of other classical debates that have no end like guns and abortion. The camps of folks in the middle who are cognitively capable of making a difference can't because the outsized voices on either side of them are screaming for either total freedom or total shutdown. They actively fear monger people out of action so no real progress is made. It prevents the best coders and business people from working on these problems and leaves a void for seedy people to fill. This is a human problem and I think largely a problem derivative of manipulative overthinking and over empathy.
I see this article as more of an interesting take on how wealthy Silicon Valley men perceive each other. My basis for that is that virtually anything sex related, apart from toys, cannot be purchased with credit or debit cards. Banks created that paradigm so of course it would be difficult for any VC firm to justify using non-fiat currency to enrich themselves. To apply gender to this and to arbitrarily add to the list of problems that men created is dubious at best.
If you want tech to create solutions for sex, the sex industry, and sex workers at large then people need to change. Already there are people on this thread attempting to correlate what I assume is BDSM to pedophilia, and echoing the voices I mentioned earlier. Protecting sex workers or even sex enthusiasts will always be an iterative game that requires constant attention. The worst thing we can do is to continue to ignore it and apply moralistic language from either end of the spectrum to the problem.
Some people might really enjoy a fallacy like action is inaction here, which is telling.
I see this article as more of an interesting take on how wealthy Silicon Valley men perceive each other. My basis for that is that virtually anything sex related, apart from toys, cannot be purchased with credit or debit cards. Banks created that paradigm so of course it would be difficult for any VC firm to justify using non-fiat currency to enrich themselves. To apply gender to this and to arbitrarily add to the list of problems that men created is dubious at best.
If you want tech to create solutions for sex, the sex industry, and sex workers at large then people need to change. Already there are people on this thread attempting to correlate what I assume is BDSM to pedophilia, and echoing the voices I mentioned earlier. Protecting sex workers or even sex enthusiasts will always be an iterative game that requires constant attention. The worst thing we can do is to continue to ignore it and apply moralistic language from either end of the spectrum to the problem.
Some people might really enjoy a fallacy like action is inaction here, which is telling.
> classical debates that have no end like guns and abortion.
I think this is a pretty american centric point of view. These debates don't have anywhere near the same back and forth in other countries (thinking of canada in particular) that they do in USA.
I imagine how taboo porn is is also very much a cultural phenomenon that varries a lot place to place.
I think this is a pretty american centric point of view. These debates don't have anywhere near the same back and forth in other countries (thinking of canada in particular) that they do in USA.
I imagine how taboo porn is is also very much a cultural phenomenon that varries a lot place to place.
This.
The debates in the US sound ridiculous to me.
It's like the US is a first world country full of people from a few centuries ago.
The debates in the US sound ridiculous to me.
It's like the US is a first world country full of people from a few centuries ago.
I mean. That statement tracks pretty well if you look at our government, where the elderly are represented in elected offices at double or even triple their actual share of the population.
According to the 2010 census Americans over 65 make up under 15% of... well, Americans[0], but currently occupy 147 seats in the House (out of a possible 435) and 48 in the Senate (out of 100), along with executive branches in 15 states (out of 50).[1]
[0] https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf
[1] https://www.quorum.us/data-driven-insights/the-115th-congres... (note that this was originally posted in 2017, but was later updated for the 116th)
According to the 2010 census Americans over 65 make up under 15% of... well, Americans[0], but currently occupy 147 seats in the House (out of a possible 435) and 48 in the Senate (out of 100), along with executive branches in 15 states (out of 50).[1]
[0] https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf
[1] https://www.quorum.us/data-driven-insights/the-115th-congres... (note that this was originally posted in 2017, but was later updated for the 116th)
Sure, but the implication that congressional representation should closely track percentage of the population is ludicrous. I mean, according to a quick Google search, nearly 40% of Americans are under age 30, the minimum age for a US Senator. Should we be mad none of them are Senators, or heck, that not one of the nearly a quarter of Americans who are under 18 (aka children) are in Congress?
You are trivializing what is an actual worldwide issue: even in democratic countries the young are completely not represented. Not “underrepresented”, not represented at all. It’s a massive, massive problem that very few countries actually tried to tackle. The young are the future, but governments can (and mostly do) completely ignore their needs, and simply run everything into the metaphorical ground - they’ll be gone by the time the real impact of their choices will be apparent, anyway.
This dovetails nicely with another big problem of most political systems: the cursus honorum for politicians is often very slow, meaning that, by the time a person gets to call the shots, the world has already changed significantly. This could simply be considered folklore when the world moved slowly, but we’ve effectively lost that luxury about 100 years ago. And when we go the other way, and elect mid-life people, we end up with revolving-door issues and poor selection criteria (looks over brains etc).
So yeah, age-representation is a big unsolved problem of democratic government.
This dovetails nicely with another big problem of most political systems: the cursus honorum for politicians is often very slow, meaning that, by the time a person gets to call the shots, the world has already changed significantly. This could simply be considered folklore when the world moved slowly, but we’ve effectively lost that luxury about 100 years ago. And when we go the other way, and elect mid-life people, we end up with revolving-door issues and poor selection criteria (looks over brains etc).
So yeah, age-representation is a big unsolved problem of democratic government.
I don't think it's taking the point too far to say that this will be one of the horsemen when the end comes for our current form of governance. Communications technology speeds social change, and government digs it's heels in because it's run by people who "know better" because they feel like their experience is more important than actual fact.
And then we laugh at people like AOC, because nothing makes us feel better about our ignorance than demeaning smart people who want to fix it for us.
And then we laugh at people like AOC, because nothing makes us feel better about our ignorance than demeaning smart people who want to fix it for us.
[deleted]
It’s less bad than that. 24% in the 2010 census were under 18 and 9.9% were 18–24.
I don’t put those under “should be in Congress”, and constitutionally they’re not allowed to be until 25. So it is 13 percentage points out of 66 percentage points — about 20% of the population with 34% of the seats in the house.
Senators have to be 30 so the over 65 crowd would be an even greater share there.
Given that experience probably gives you _something_, it’s still out of whack but not crazy.
All of that said, personally I believe it’s far too skewed and we should have an age cap in Congress.
I don’t put those under “should be in Congress”, and constitutionally they’re not allowed to be until 25. So it is 13 percentage points out of 66 percentage points — about 20% of the population with 34% of the seats in the house.
Senators have to be 30 so the over 65 crowd would be an even greater share there.
Given that experience probably gives you _something_, it’s still out of whack but not crazy.
All of that said, personally I believe it’s far too skewed and we should have an age cap in Congress.
I'd note that its not like these are recent events in canada. Trudeau (the current Prime minister's dad) introduced the bill that semi-legalized abortion (under restricted circumstances) and introduced some gun control, 52 years ago. (Among other things like legalizing homosexuality and contraceptives). Then 20 years later the remaining restrictions on abortion were ruled unconstitutional.
All these senior citizen lawmakers in the usa were pretty young when all this went down, so i dont think age is an explaining factor for the differences.
All these senior citizen lawmakers in the usa were pretty young when all this went down, so i dont think age is an explaining factor for the differences.
Yes, I don't know either.
In Germany we are ruled by old people and conservatives, but they are nothing compared to the US.
In Germany we are ruled by old people and conservatives, but they are nothing compared to the US.
The abortion debate still happens (at varying intensities and varying degrees of public view) in much of Europe.
The gun control debate is largely settled but I suspect it will start up quite loudly if the EU ever tries to normalize gun laws across member states. The difference between say, the Netherlands (low ownership, very hard to get a license), Austria (moderately regulated and lots of unlicensed ownership), and Finland (very high ownership rate but strictly regulated) is probably wider than any US state, because the US constitution has been interpreted to set a fairly high bar for any regulation.
The gun control debate is largely settled but I suspect it will start up quite loudly if the EU ever tries to normalize gun laws across member states. The difference between say, the Netherlands (low ownership, very hard to get a license), Austria (moderately regulated and lots of unlicensed ownership), and Finland (very high ownership rate but strictly regulated) is probably wider than any US state, because the US constitution has been interpreted to set a fairly high bar for any regulation.
Yep you are absolutely right. Abortion and guns is a non-issue in most of Western Europe. And Australia.
Largely because the extreme end of one side already "won" the debate on those other nations, and actively suppresses and/or oppresses any dissent
Where is there active suppression of debate on gun control in western nations?
For example in the media.
Let's take major newspapers like _The Times_ or the _Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung_ as examples.
You will not find any article that mentions 2nd amendment rights while not taking side against gun ownership. Every time the American practice is mentioned, it is scoffed at. At least by implication.
Let's take major newspapers like _The Times_ or the _Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung_ as examples.
You will not find any article that mentions 2nd amendment rights while not taking side against gun ownership. Every time the American practice is mentioned, it is scoffed at. At least by implication.
Perhaps there's a good reason for that. Not all ideas are created equal, and the proliferation of mass shootings in the states should serve as a strong signal that our gun laws are dumb.
Somehow, the conversation has stalled here because some people actually believe they're going to protect their freedoms with violence. You know, by fighting against a government equipped with stealth bombers and death drones and navy seals. With their hunting rifles.
I served in the army. The idea that civilians could put up anything of a fight is a fantasy more ridiculous than kung fury. What keeps you safe from "the government" is that soldiers are taught that they are there to serve and that American citizens are off-limits, not that they are somehow quivering in their boots about losing a fight with your cute little club of weekend warriors that play dress-up in the woods with walkie talkies.
Somehow, the conversation has stalled here because some people actually believe they're going to protect their freedoms with violence. You know, by fighting against a government equipped with stealth bombers and death drones and navy seals. With their hunting rifles.
I served in the army. The idea that civilians could put up anything of a fight is a fantasy more ridiculous than kung fury. What keeps you safe from "the government" is that soldiers are taught that they are there to serve and that American citizens are off-limits, not that they are somehow quivering in their boots about losing a fight with your cute little club of weekend warriors that play dress-up in the woods with walkie talkies.
Agree. It doesn’t matter how much ammo you store in your little hut in the woods, the number of guns you buy, the amount of Tactical Toothbrushes in camouflage paint you squirrel away. The government doesn’t even have to use the army. It can simply declare you to be a terrorist (using one of the secret courts), and send in the local gun crazy SWAT guys to take you out. And if you as much as look at one of your Tactical Toothbrushes when they burst through your bedroom door at 4am, they will shoot you so full of holes that not even your mum will recognise you. Followed by a press conference where the government will proudly declare to the world that they have eliminated yet another terrorist and back slaps all around for the brave boys who pumped you full of lead.
Interesting that a soldier is ignoring both A) the incredible power of guerilla warfare (see: Vietnam War), and B) the horrifyingly bad optics, and possible sanctions, that would result from the US actually utilizing unrestrained military might against their own citizens.
A) We are engaging, currently, in a number of asymmetric (read: guerilla) wars right now, with an unfathomable level of success - see Afghanistan, Iraq et al. We have learned a lot and gotten a lot better at things since Vietnam (not to mention, we train on American soil, so the guerilla advantage is more or less lost, there).
B) That's exactly what I'm saying! It's the optics and the structure of political ownership that prevents such a civil war, not deterrence, as the second amendment was designed to implement.
B) That's exactly what I'm saying! It's the optics and the structure of political ownership that prevents such a civil war, not deterrence, as the second amendment was designed to implement.
I have heard that American knife murders are as high, and out of step with other countries, as for gun murders.
Perhaps there is something deeply violent (deeply wrong IMO) in the USA's culture?
Perhaps there is something deeply violent (deeply wrong IMO) in the USA's culture?
I agree with you on the practical utility of the 2nd amendment for defending against tyranny (and if anything it seems to be more of a distraction, encouraging tyranny to developed unchecked with the idea that it will be fought at some future breaking point). But with regards to school shootings there is a much more prominent and straightforward cause - mass media itself, both news and entertainment. And they're continually working to write themselves out of the narrative by directing focus at inanimate objects.
I am not sure I understand your argument. Are you saying that it was actually journalists that were running around shooting the kids, and not kids wanting to take revenge with guns they had easy access to? And that without easy access to guns the kinds would have killed the same number of people with, say, a kitchen knife? Really?
It seems like you willfully misunderstood my argument, as talking about journalists shooting kids is some obvious caricature.
Society is held together by people's values and individual adherence to shared rules - aka culture. Kids, like everyone else (eg cops), are acting out cultural norms, being mostly defined by mass media.
Entertainment media mostly consists of easy-to-write fight scenes where the main characters dispose of some endless supply of nameless "bad guys". A few hits or shots, that one is gone, move on to the next one. No scenes showing henchman #17 hugging his kids goodbye that morning, or henchman #31's parents grieving. Just purely transactional force-of-will violence - sound familiar?
Furthermore, news media then glorifies shooting events when they do happen, showering the perpetrator with attention and making sure they go down in infamy - it's actually a quite precocious way to get one's 15 minutes of fame.
And of course there's that other uncomfortable issue of why school environments cause kids to want to kill their peers in the first place!
But there's no straightforward approaches to those, and they're held in place by entrenched incentives (lazy writing, clickbait advertising, ass-covering school administrators), while the people speaking up for the inanimate objects are easy to write off.
Society is held together by people's values and individual adherence to shared rules - aka culture. Kids, like everyone else (eg cops), are acting out cultural norms, being mostly defined by mass media.
Entertainment media mostly consists of easy-to-write fight scenes where the main characters dispose of some endless supply of nameless "bad guys". A few hits or shots, that one is gone, move on to the next one. No scenes showing henchman #17 hugging his kids goodbye that morning, or henchman #31's parents grieving. Just purely transactional force-of-will violence - sound familiar?
Furthermore, news media then glorifies shooting events when they do happen, showering the perpetrator with attention and making sure they go down in infamy - it's actually a quite precocious way to get one's 15 minutes of fame.
And of course there's that other uncomfortable issue of why school environments cause kids to want to kill their peers in the first place!
But there's no straightforward approaches to those, and they're held in place by entrenched incentives (lazy writing, clickbait advertising, ass-covering school administrators), while the people speaking up for the inanimate objects are easy to write off.
Most rich western countries don’t have mass shootings in schools. Even though the media you describe is the same. So obviously the media is not the reason why. So what is the difference then? It’s simple: kids in the US have easy access to guns. Not so in other rich western countries. If kids in other rich countries had easy access to guns, there would be school shootings there as well.
You basically say that rebellion can never be successful.
That is precisely what I am saying.
A German news paper like Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung has little reason to mention the 2nd amendment rights, because there are no 2nd amendment rights in Germany.
What most countries in EU has is gun ownership license, similar to a driving license, and thus the default right that people without a license has is no rights. Permission is given by the government, and thus the government set the terms.
In the US this power relationship is the other way around. People have a default right to bear arms, and so government have to take away rights in order to enforce gun control.
One could easily imagine a country where driving a car would be part of a constitution, in which case a driving license would be a hot discussion. How, when and where should the government be allowed to step in and remove peoples right to do with their car property as they wish? People from other countries would look at the debate and find it a bit odd.
What most countries in EU has is gun ownership license, similar to a driving license, and thus the default right that people without a license has is no rights. Permission is given by the government, and thus the government set the terms.
In the US this power relationship is the other way around. People have a default right to bear arms, and so government have to take away rights in order to enforce gun control.
One could easily imagine a country where driving a car would be part of a constitution, in which case a driving license would be a hot discussion. How, when and where should the government be allowed to step in and remove peoples right to do with their car property as they wish? People from other countries would look at the debate and find it a bit odd.
People outside the US scoff because of the ridiculous amount of harm done by overly easy access to firearms in the US and your inability to discuss it seriously as a nation, as profoundly ridiculed by the Onion[1].
As people outside the US are fond of pointing out, your right to bear arms came from the 2nd _amendment_ so you know, you could always make another amendment.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27No_Way_To_Prevent_This,%27_...
As people outside the US are fond of pointing out, your right to bear arms came from the 2nd _amendment_ so you know, you could always make another amendment.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27No_Way_To_Prevent_This,%27_...
So? make your own newspaper.
A newspaper (especially a privately owned one) not agreeing with you hardly amounts to suppression.
A newspaper (especially a privately owned one) not agreeing with you hardly amounts to suppression.
> My basis for that is that virtually anything sex related, apart from toys, cannot be purchased with credit or debit cards.
Most porn can be bought with credit cards, at least in the USA. Mainstream payment processing companies like stripe may not be willing to do it but if you go try to buy (legal) porn right now with a credit card you will be able to do it.
Most porn can be bought with credit cards, at least in the USA. Mainstream payment processing companies like stripe may not be willing to do it but if you go try to buy (legal) porn right now with a credit card you will be able to do it.
Sort of!
I remember this being discussed a number of years ago: https://fetlife.com/help/can-i-use-a-credit-card-to-support-...
You could argue the merits of the website (I am not a member) but at the end of the day if you can only use BitCoin or a bank account then the policies have failed businesses, consumers, and content creators.
I don't know where the lines lie for decency in credit card payments or what they consider acceptable risk, but I would point back to my original assertion. If you cannot pay the best coders, the best business people, then those worries will not be solved.
I remember this being discussed a number of years ago: https://fetlife.com/help/can-i-use-a-credit-card-to-support-...
You could argue the merits of the website (I am not a member) but at the end of the day if you can only use BitCoin or a bank account then the policies have failed businesses, consumers, and content creators.
I don't know where the lines lie for decency in credit card payments or what they consider acceptable risk, but I would point back to my original assertion. If you cannot pay the best coders, the best business people, then those worries will not be solved.
They support credit cards again. Although they had to tighten their content guidelines to meet non-existant requirements.
> Over the last decade, I've spoken to easily over a hundred people in both the financial and adult industries, and asked them for a copy of the official content rules. Everyone says they've heard that there are rules, but nobody seems to have seen them or can even get their hands on them!
https://fetlife.com/groups/311/posts/15046791
(No login wall) https://pastebin.com/FK6Z7gMf
I just checked their payment page and as of today, they accept credit cards.
> Over the last decade, I've spoken to easily over a hundred people in both the financial and adult industries, and asked them for a copy of the official content rules. Everyone says they've heard that there are rules, but nobody seems to have seen them or can even get their hands on them!
https://fetlife.com/groups/311/posts/15046791
(No login wall) https://pastebin.com/FK6Z7gMf
I just checked their payment page and as of today, they accept credit cards.
A lot of working girls accept credit cards with "discreet billing" (IT/Computer services etc), and almost all accept Venmo/Square Cash/PayPal, all of which get filled by credit or debit cards. Some even refuse to set an appointment without paying a deposit online.
There's a spectrum with this.. some banks will allow CC processing for a porn biz.. some get creative with how they label things... some will even get into details about types of content maybe..
but it's not as easy as mainstream, and often much more expensive to process and in some cases to even sign up.
Last I looked into ccBill - they were collecting an extra 2 grand up front payment to enable process mastercard.
These systems are taking advantage of niche classes imho.
There is also the threat of getting deplatformed / de-processed? quickly because bad PR - something that a local hardware store would not be worried about.
It's harder to find places to work with you, it's more expensive, and easier to loose your ability to get paid. Sometimes there are things like operation chokepoint that try to make it near impossible for a small independent operator to go out on her own.
but it's not as easy as mainstream, and often much more expensive to process and in some cases to even sign up.
Last I looked into ccBill - they were collecting an extra 2 grand up front payment to enable process mastercard.
These systems are taking advantage of niche classes imho.
There is also the threat of getting deplatformed / de-processed? quickly because bad PR - something that a local hardware store would not be worried about.
It's harder to find places to work with you, it's more expensive, and easier to loose your ability to get paid. Sometimes there are things like operation chokepoint that try to make it near impossible for a small independent operator to go out on her own.
[deleted]
> My basis for that is that virtually anything sex related, apart from toys, cannot be purchased with credit or debit cards.
Hmm, the 3 adult shops I pass on the way into work beg to differ. You can buy anything from lingerie, to lube (with CBD Oil!), videos, handcuffs, ball gags... You can get any of this stuff online too.
The only place where you might struggle to use Visa cards for sex is on sites that have been busted with illegal content.
Hmm, the 3 adult shops I pass on the way into work beg to differ. You can buy anything from lingerie, to lube (with CBD Oil!), videos, handcuffs, ball gags... You can get any of this stuff online too.
The only place where you might struggle to use Visa cards for sex is on sites that have been busted with illegal content.
Those are toys
> virtually anything sex related, apart from toys, cannot be purchased with credit or debit cards
So after all those years, we have finally found a use case for cryptocurrencies!
So after all those years, we have finally found a use case for cryptocurrencies!
> The camps of folks in the middle who are cognitively capable of making a difference can't because the outsized voices on either side of them are screaming for either total freedom or total shutdown
I really don't think this is accurate analysis of abortion debate in USA. First, I am not even sure what difference should the middle require in your analysis.
What progress on abortion would you expect to happen had advocates stopped talking?
I really don't think this is accurate analysis of abortion debate in USA. First, I am not even sure what difference should the middle require in your analysis.
What progress on abortion would you expect to happen had advocates stopped talking?
Women would get the services they need, safely.
Well, duh!
Well, duh!
> cannot be purchased with credit or debit cards.
I remember buying porn with CCBill (from my experience, a payment company for porn and shareware) many years ago. I don’t remember there ever being a time when there was a problem purchasing porn.
I remember buying porn with CCBill (from my experience, a payment company for porn and shareware) many years ago. I don’t remember there ever being a time when there was a problem purchasing porn.
> Porn always reminds me of other classical debates that have no end like guns and abortion. The camps of folks in the middle who are cognitively capable of making a difference can't because the outsized voices on either side of them are screaming for either total freedom or total shutdown.
Conservatives and progressives/liberals have completely different world views:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Politics_(book)
There may be some underlying biological differences, that then get reinforced culturally (the old nature/nurture debate):
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_political_orientat...
* https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/03/the-yuc...
* https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/conservative-and-...
* https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3092984/
Political polarization hasn't helped in trying to find a middle path between these views in recent years/decades:
* https://www.pewresearch.org/topics/political-polarization/
* https://carnegieendowment.org/2019/10/01/how-to-understand-g...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_polarization
Especially in the US, where it seems the Right has moved further over than the Left:
* https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/yes-pol...
Conservatives and progressives/liberals have completely different world views:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Politics_(book)
There may be some underlying biological differences, that then get reinforced culturally (the old nature/nurture debate):
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_political_orientat...
* https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/03/the-yuc...
* https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/conservative-and-...
* https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3092984/
Political polarization hasn't helped in trying to find a middle path between these views in recent years/decades:
* https://www.pewresearch.org/topics/political-polarization/
* https://carnegieendowment.org/2019/10/01/how-to-understand-g...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_polarization
Especially in the US, where it seems the Right has moved further over than the Left:
* https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/yes-pol...
> Especially in the US, where it seems the Right has moved further over than the Left:
As of 2014, when that Atlantic piece was written, that may have been true. As of 2020, the left has also radicalized itself:
* https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/1339984166935359488?s=...
* https://www.thenation.com/article/society/black-votes-repara...
* https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2020/08/27/906642178...
As of 2014, when that Atlantic piece was written, that may have been true. As of 2020, the left has also radicalized itself:
* https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/1339984166935359488?s=...
* https://www.thenation.com/article/society/black-votes-repara...
* https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2020/08/27/906642178...
There have always been radical people on both the Left and Right over the decades. But how much traction do those radicals have on getting elected politicians and on actual policy?
It used to be that the GOP had little time for people like the John Birch Society. Now there are Qanon 'followers' (?) being elected under the auspices of the GOP party ticket.
Vox's Ezra Klein recently released a book on the matter (I have not yet read it), and going from this review, while there has been a shift on the Left, it is still the case in 2020 that the problem is generally asymmetric, and the majority has been on the right:
* https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/05/polarization-republi...
After all: there are people on the Right talking about a martial law and a military coup to 'correct' the election results.
It used to be that the GOP had little time for people like the John Birch Society. Now there are Qanon 'followers' (?) being elected under the auspices of the GOP party ticket.
Vox's Ezra Klein recently released a book on the matter (I have not yet read it), and going from this review, while there has been a shift on the Left, it is still the case in 2020 that the problem is generally asymmetric, and the majority has been on the right:
* https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/05/polarization-republi...
After all: there are people on the Right talking about a martial law and a military coup to 'correct' the election results.
I went out of my way to pick the CDC, The Nation, and NPR specifically in order to avoid accusations of nutpicking. As the CDC example shows, you don't actually need to elect politicians in order to enact policy.
> But how much traction do those radicals have on getting elected politicians and on actual policy?
“We need to not ever use the word ‘socialist’ or ‘socialism’ ever again. . . . We lost good members because of that,” Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-Va.), who narrowly leads in her reelection bid, said heatedly. “If we are classifying Tuesday as a success . . . we will get f---ing torn apart in 2022.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-democrats-pelo...
> Vox's Ezra Klein recently released a book on the matter (I have not yet read it), and going from this review, while there has been a shift on the Left, it is still the case in 2020 that the problem is generally asymmetric, and the majority has been on the right
Ezra Klein isn't exactly an unbiased source here.
> But how much traction do those radicals have on getting elected politicians and on actual policy?
“We need to not ever use the word ‘socialist’ or ‘socialism’ ever again. . . . We lost good members because of that,” Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-Va.), who narrowly leads in her reelection bid, said heatedly. “If we are classifying Tuesday as a success . . . we will get f---ing torn apart in 2022.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-democrats-pelo...
> Vox's Ezra Klein recently released a book on the matter (I have not yet read it), and going from this review, while there has been a shift on the Left, it is still the case in 2020 that the problem is generally asymmetric, and the majority has been on the right
Ezra Klein isn't exactly an unbiased source here.
[deleted]
Precisely. The culture of our main groups is what drives the loud voices. In the end, American culture is useless for solving these kind of problems, at least for the time being.
There are people who buy into politics but not culture though (eg: it is possible for one to be politically liberal but then be more culturally free rather than culturally constrained). These people, in the sense of sex work and the porn industry may be able to produce viable solutions and products, but they'd constantly be on the defensive against both political cultures.
There are people who buy into politics but not culture though (eg: it is possible for one to be politically liberal but then be more culturally free rather than culturally constrained). These people, in the sense of sex work and the porn industry may be able to produce viable solutions and products, but they'd constantly be on the defensive against both political cultures.
I mean, this is all well and good - if those people wouldn't actively consume porn and take the services of sex workers, as the OP points out. The "yuck" factor seems to only apply if this stuff is discussed in the open.
SV is not going to disrupt the sex industry because the part that needs disrupting is the unethical nature of it. Profit is not optimised to do that.
OnlyFans seems to have disrupted the porn industry in an ethical way I think. Profit obviously isn't always closely aligned with ethics, but being ethical is usually a good idea all other things being equal. People are more likely to support your company if they think you behave ethically (it helps if they believe in your mission), and if you have a history of acting honestly you can maybe derive gains from the fact that your customers may trust you more.
Has it? It seems to me that OnlyFans is going to quickly create a winner-takes-most environment, where much like in music most people put in a lot of work for not a lot of pay. Atop that, there's a toxic parasocial aspect to it where consumers pay for semblance of an emotional connection.
I don't know if an system that's so exploitative by design can really be called ethical. Or if a company that does it can be called so. You can claim it increases the agency of producers and that's true as far as it goes, but you have to ignore that the music industry also gives a lot of agency to broke wannabes in garage bands.
I don't know if an system that's so exploitative by design can really be called ethical. Or if a company that does it can be called so. You can claim it increases the agency of producers and that's true as far as it goes, but you have to ignore that the music industry also gives a lot of agency to broke wannabes in garage bands.
Enter the Power Law Distribution
Who said disrupt? I certainly didn't. That said, tech (not Silicon Valley) could develop open methods for verification or DRM that could be useful in solving the problems people are talking about.
Tech isn't all about making money. Silicon Valley probably is.
Tech isn't all about making money. Silicon Valley probably is.
"Everything in life is about sex, except sex. Sex is about power."
I think the debate is not really about porn, but people's sense of justice, cheating, deserving things or not etc.
Some feel like porn gives unearned satisfaction to young men, a virtual substitute they don't have to work for. The bitter other side will say, no shit, I won't slave away to get screwed over, it's much more straightforward business to consume porn.
A wife may feel cheated and less desired, and therefore feel like they are less necessary, a "resource" they provide is devalued.
Puritans may feel like so much sexuality and hedonism tries to cheat and get the benefits, while not suffering consequences, like pregnancy, adult responsibility of family life etc. That it hollows out the sanctity of this intimate and symbolic act.
Others may feel camgirls are collecting undeserved money, they don't do actual noble valuable work, just cash in based on their genetics and immorality.
It all comes down to a feeling that people get things they don't deserve.
It's about feelings that the young man should work his ass off to obtain status than satisfy himself with porn. The female performer should rather hold on to her sexual value and motivate men to work to get it and then only give it out when also taking on the responsibility of childbirth.
And therefore it's not likely that the debate will get "resolved", because it's not about some objective disagreement but about who deserves what. It's more metaphysical and depends on one's fundamental worldview and framework of justice.
I think the debate is not really about porn, but people's sense of justice, cheating, deserving things or not etc.
Some feel like porn gives unearned satisfaction to young men, a virtual substitute they don't have to work for. The bitter other side will say, no shit, I won't slave away to get screwed over, it's much more straightforward business to consume porn.
A wife may feel cheated and less desired, and therefore feel like they are less necessary, a "resource" they provide is devalued.
Puritans may feel like so much sexuality and hedonism tries to cheat and get the benefits, while not suffering consequences, like pregnancy, adult responsibility of family life etc. That it hollows out the sanctity of this intimate and symbolic act.
Others may feel camgirls are collecting undeserved money, they don't do actual noble valuable work, just cash in based on their genetics and immorality.
It all comes down to a feeling that people get things they don't deserve.
It's about feelings that the young man should work his ass off to obtain status than satisfy himself with porn. The female performer should rather hold on to her sexual value and motivate men to work to get it and then only give it out when also taking on the responsibility of childbirth.
And therefore it's not likely that the debate will get "resolved", because it's not about some objective disagreement but about who deserves what. It's more metaphysical and depends on one's fundamental worldview and framework of justice.
> That it hollows out the sanctity of this intimate and symbolic act.
See that's the problem. We as a society need to stop putting sex on a pedestal. It's just sex. Pleasure is pleasure, why would anyone not want to be pleasured?
And why is pleasure something that has to be earned? It is very simple to give and receive pleasure, why complicate that?
See that's the problem. We as a society need to stop putting sex on a pedestal. It's just sex. Pleasure is pleasure, why would anyone not want to be pleasured?
And why is pleasure something that has to be earned? It is very simple to give and receive pleasure, why complicate that?
Perhaps because many communities deeply believe sex is more than just for pleasure?
Humans love to manufacture mysticism around the purely physical world. Symbolism is a terrifying thing. Nothing is anything more than it seems, and the sooner we get around to accepting that, the better off we'll be.
So damn well said.
But not for making babies, as per the astronomically high unplanned pregnancy rate.
¿Por qué no los dos?
You can’t both value and devalue something at once…
Who's devaluing what?
I'm suggesting that it can be valued for pleasure, and it can be valued for procreation. Because both are true (at least in the PIV scenario).
The anti-sex folks are following old, overly simplistic, and ineffective campaigns to "protect people from themselves (via their genitals)". Most of it is well intended but oh so wrong.
Edit: the only problem is the boundaries of power -- wanting to apply religious beliefs to the whole population rather than their particular sect. And I'd wager a fair amount of the conflict over this power is manufactured in order to keep the base riled up.
I'm suggesting that it can be valued for pleasure, and it can be valued for procreation. Because both are true (at least in the PIV scenario).
The anti-sex folks are following old, overly simplistic, and ineffective campaigns to "protect people from themselves (via their genitals)". Most of it is well intended but oh so wrong.
Edit: the only problem is the boundaries of power -- wanting to apply religious beliefs to the whole population rather than their particular sect. And I'd wager a fair amount of the conflict over this power is manufactured in order to keep the base riled up.
It's not just pleasure. It's intimacy, bonding hormone levels rising, etc. Why is it pleasurable? Because of evolution. Sex is complicated.
https://xkcd.com/592/
People thought that after the pill, sex will become simple and uncomplicated, just have orgies for fun all the time. But it's not happening on a large scale even in the very liberal societies. There was a brief moment with the hippies, but it didn't last long. Yes there is hookup culture, but it's far from uncomplicated. It's not everyone can easily participate in and has its own little games.
It's one of the fundamental components building our social fabric.
Why does pleasure have to be earned? I'm not sure I subscribe to that, I probably need a few decades more of contemplation and experience to answer such a thing. I'm just saying that there is such a template in many people's moralities. I think it's kind of silly, because the universe doesn't care, it's not a vending machine to put in hard work and get rewards. It's way more random and unpredictable than that. Sometimes something easy gives you lots of reward, and toiling away in the wrong way leaves you with nothing. But on the whole, on a large scale, on a population level, at the expectation, you cannot get something out of nothing, it seems. It's not a law of physics or anything. It may also seem pseudo-religious. But overall it seems to be the strategy that people adopt who achieve things. That you need to put in effort to reap rewards. Otherwise all kinds of things can happen, like hedonic adaptation, setting your baseline at a different place, inflation of the value of things etc.
https://xkcd.com/592/
People thought that after the pill, sex will become simple and uncomplicated, just have orgies for fun all the time. But it's not happening on a large scale even in the very liberal societies. There was a brief moment with the hippies, but it didn't last long. Yes there is hookup culture, but it's far from uncomplicated. It's not everyone can easily participate in and has its own little games.
It's one of the fundamental components building our social fabric.
Why does pleasure have to be earned? I'm not sure I subscribe to that, I probably need a few decades more of contemplation and experience to answer such a thing. I'm just saying that there is such a template in many people's moralities. I think it's kind of silly, because the universe doesn't care, it's not a vending machine to put in hard work and get rewards. It's way more random and unpredictable than that. Sometimes something easy gives you lots of reward, and toiling away in the wrong way leaves you with nothing. But on the whole, on a large scale, on a population level, at the expectation, you cannot get something out of nothing, it seems. It's not a law of physics or anything. It may also seem pseudo-religious. But overall it seems to be the strategy that people adopt who achieve things. That you need to put in effort to reap rewards. Otherwise all kinds of things can happen, like hedonic adaptation, setting your baseline at a different place, inflation of the value of things etc.
Complications around sex purely for pleasure might have a lot to with STDs and may be some historical cultural baggage than bonding and intimacy issues.
Something given has no value.
The truest line from Starship Troopers.
The truest line from Starship Troopers.
Sex is free. We are all equipped with the necessary hardware. Barring health issues it costs nothing. Why does it need to have "value"?
This perception that it has value is one of the very things that people add just to complicate things. It isn't about value, or a chase, and to be honest I wish people would decouple it from anything more than intimacy. It should only be about getting you and your partner off. (And making babies, where wanted.)
For something that builds up inside all of us, some of us very quickly, society should really try to make it easier for everyone to access, especially since we are all equipped to provide.
This perception that it has value is one of the very things that people add just to complicate things. It isn't about value, or a chase, and to be honest I wish people would decouple it from anything more than intimacy. It should only be about getting you and your partner off. (And making babies, where wanted.)
For something that builds up inside all of us, some of us very quickly, society should really try to make it easier for everyone to access, especially since we are all equipped to provide.
So what is it about? Just the physical sensation of the friction of feeling the glans penis rubbing against the vagina? Nothing more, about validation, recognition, bonding, status, power etc?
Simply "sawing away" without emotion or "stakes", it loses value.
People don't just want to have sex, they want to have sex with some people, in some circumstances. Men are less picky (both out of necessity and due to lower consequences), but still somewhat selective, if for no other reasons then opportunity costs.
Nothing is simple about sex.
Simply "sawing away" without emotion or "stakes", it loses value.
People don't just want to have sex, they want to have sex with some people, in some circumstances. Men are less picky (both out of necessity and due to lower consequences), but still somewhat selective, if for no other reasons then opportunity costs.
Nothing is simple about sex.
Personally I think it could do without the status and power dynamics. Those other things, sure, as components of intimacy, but ultimately I think it should be about orgasms and babies, and the giving and receiving thereof. I think the giving and receiving of pleasure is an end in and of itself.
In terms of pure thrusting, that is a very narrow view of it. For one thing you're forgetting about sensuality, foreplay, kink, and polyamory, and the immense feeling of satisfaction of blowing off steam that builds up over time.
In terms of pure thrusting, that is a very narrow view of it. For one thing you're forgetting about sensuality, foreplay, kink, and polyamory, and the immense feeling of satisfaction of blowing off steam that builds up over time.
>Sex is free. We are all equipped with the necessary hardware. Barring health issues it costs nothing. Why does it need to have "value"?
Everyone is equipped with the necessary hardware to work in my factory. Barring health issues it costs nothing. Why does your labor need to have "value"?
Everyone is equipped with the necessary hardware to work in my factory. Barring health issues it costs nothing. Why does your labor need to have "value"?
If you could make them think about and want to work in your factory the way they think about and want sex, you'd have a full roster every shift and would be turning people away. Such an oversupply would naturally see the value of that labor drop to near nothing.
If this were true, prostitution wouldn't exist because no one would be willing to pay for sex.
Prostitution exists because of the things I've described, not in spite of it. Yes if sex were truly free and easily available then sex work wouldn't be as lucrative as it is today. And, as you say, there'd be no need for it because everyone's already getting their rocks off.
One can dream...
One can dream...
> Puritans may feel like so much sexuality and hedonism tries to cheat and get the benefits, while not suffering consequences, like pregnancy, adult responsibility of family life etc. That it hollows out the sanctity of this intimate and symbolic act.
Not a puritan, but I could never explain that viewpoint to me with anything else than envy.
Like, being careful with sex if it may lead to unwanted pregnancies makes perfect sense - but those people seem even more upset at the possibility of sex that has no risk attached to it.
Isn't improving quality of life something we are all striving for? This movement seems to go the exact opposite direction and embrace suffering instead of joy.
Not a puritan, but I could never explain that viewpoint to me with anything else than envy.
Like, being careful with sex if it may lead to unwanted pregnancies makes perfect sense - but those people seem even more upset at the possibility of sex that has no risk attached to it.
Isn't improving quality of life something we are all striving for? This movement seems to go the exact opposite direction and embrace suffering instead of joy.
Sociologically, the worry is that larger and larger numbers of the young male population will withdraw, and become Hikikomori. Doing the bare minimum to sustain themselves, and riding life between moments of hollow, isolated, carnal release with no greater purpose and a constant nagging dissatisfaction with their marginal existence.
From a perspective of optimization, it could be seen as young men reaching a local minima with respect their quality of life vs the risks and costs of its maintenance.
The commodotization and derisking of sexual pleasure and titillation decouples it from the behaviors it's historically been used as a reward for. This reweights the incentive structures in our society that kept a lot of otherwise ne'er-do-well young people productive.
I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, but it's something we definitely need to have a collective dialogue about, as we no longer have any centralized moral or executive authorities capable of unilaterally responding to this shift in a manner that puts us back into social balance.
From a perspective of optimization, it could be seen as young men reaching a local minima with respect their quality of life vs the risks and costs of its maintenance.
The commodotization and derisking of sexual pleasure and titillation decouples it from the behaviors it's historically been used as a reward for. This reweights the incentive structures in our society that kept a lot of otherwise ne'er-do-well young people productive.
I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, but it's something we definitely need to have a collective dialogue about, as we no longer have any centralized moral or executive authorities capable of unilaterally responding to this shift in a manner that puts us back into social balance.
Surely there is a bitter killjoy undertone in it, yes. Perhaps even more when coming from the old and weak who envy the young for their energy and enjoyment.
But I don't think that's all.
But I don't think that's all.
Are there "puritans" as such anymore?
I think the theological morality case is more like treating sexual addiction, like porn addiction, like a sickness that needs support and treatment, at least more than it is now.
The Christian perspective is that on a moral level, watching porn is in the same category as adultery and whatever sexual immorality that is depicted in the pornography. That's because moral culpability is in the heart to start with.
Folks don't sign up for the same worldview, sure. And it's a nonsense (perhaps harmful) worldview if you reject Christian teaching altogether. But there's a lot more subtlety, realism, and (from their perspective) care for people than is captured by concerns about cheating and symbolism.
More concretely, there is a lot of excitement to see progress on modern slavery and human trafficking in many Christian circles. The intersection between pornography, sex work, and sexual slavery is especially concerning in those circles.
I think the theological morality case is more like treating sexual addiction, like porn addiction, like a sickness that needs support and treatment, at least more than it is now.
The Christian perspective is that on a moral level, watching porn is in the same category as adultery and whatever sexual immorality that is depicted in the pornography. That's because moral culpability is in the heart to start with.
Folks don't sign up for the same worldview, sure. And it's a nonsense (perhaps harmful) worldview if you reject Christian teaching altogether. But there's a lot more subtlety, realism, and (from their perspective) care for people than is captured by concerns about cheating and symbolism.
More concretely, there is a lot of excitement to see progress on modern slavery and human trafficking in many Christian circles. The intersection between pornography, sex work, and sexual slavery is especially concerning in those circles.
Not puritans per se but certainly people who push the puritan mindset, in order to profit from the hard work and sacrifice of others.
The push for full time employment for everyone, framed as a good thing, usually comes from people who do very little work themselves while profiting from it immensely.
No offense, but your take on social attitudes about porn is really strange and pretty misogynistic.
> “ Some feel like porn gives unearned satisfaction to young men, a virtual substitute they don't have to work for.”
What? Maybe extremist groups like the proud boys, but I’ve literally never heard this objection. People tend to worry more about socialization and the harmful psychological effects porn can have on people.
> “ Others may feel camgirls are collecting undeserved money, they don't do actual noble valuable work, just cash in based on their genetics and immorality.”
Again, thats an extremist misogynistic viewpoint. The real objections I’ve heard concern the exploitation of the industry and the lack of protections for workers.
All the worldviews you describe are hyper-conservative, and don’t at all describe society as a whole.
> “ Some feel like porn gives unearned satisfaction to young men, a virtual substitute they don't have to work for.”
What? Maybe extremist groups like the proud boys, but I’ve literally never heard this objection. People tend to worry more about socialization and the harmful psychological effects porn can have on people.
> “ Others may feel camgirls are collecting undeserved money, they don't do actual noble valuable work, just cash in based on their genetics and immorality.”
Again, thats an extremist misogynistic viewpoint. The real objections I’ve heard concern the exploitation of the industry and the lack of protections for workers.
All the worldviews you describe are hyper-conservative, and don’t at all describe society as a whole.
> What? Maybe extremist groups like the proud boys, but I’ve literally never heard this objection
I meant this part as quite analogous to the drug debate. People dislike drug comsumers because they feel drugs are a cheat: you get unearned pleasure without having to work for it. You sidestep your noble duties of working and earning the fruits of your labours by short-circuiting and hooking your brain directly on to pleasure juices. I think -- said explicitly or not -- a lot of the same sentiment underlies the anti-porn stance. That men can get (part of) the pleasure without the work. The underlying idea is that without porn, men would be forced to rather work on themselves, improve themselves, mature and provide value to society to attract female attention etc. Just like the (misguided or not) idea that without drugs all the junkies would suddenly go take on a decent 9-5 job and climb the ladder like one is supposed to and indulge in buying stuff with their hard earned money. Just outlining a narrative, not that I believe this simplified story, just that I think these patterns are lurking there, it's not merely about showing bodies and genitals due to some irrational arbitrary taboo.
> Again, thats an extremist misogynistic viewpoint. The real objections I’ve heard concern the exploitation of the industry and the lack of protections for workers.
What people say in public to look good is different from what they act out. Despite all the liberal attitudes in western europe for example, if you go to a brothel in Amsterdam, you won't see rich Dutch girls self-actualizing, or middle-class Norwegian girls expressing their empowered sexuality, but poor Bulgarians, Ukraininans, Hungarians, Roma, etc.
Sure there are exceptions. But overall even most of the enlightened liberal Western European parents don't actually want their daughter to become a pornstar or a prostitute. For reasons approximating my previous comment -- that they are worth more than their mere bodily appearance, etc.
I meant this part as quite analogous to the drug debate. People dislike drug comsumers because they feel drugs are a cheat: you get unearned pleasure without having to work for it. You sidestep your noble duties of working and earning the fruits of your labours by short-circuiting and hooking your brain directly on to pleasure juices. I think -- said explicitly or not -- a lot of the same sentiment underlies the anti-porn stance. That men can get (part of) the pleasure without the work. The underlying idea is that without porn, men would be forced to rather work on themselves, improve themselves, mature and provide value to society to attract female attention etc. Just like the (misguided or not) idea that without drugs all the junkies would suddenly go take on a decent 9-5 job and climb the ladder like one is supposed to and indulge in buying stuff with their hard earned money. Just outlining a narrative, not that I believe this simplified story, just that I think these patterns are lurking there, it's not merely about showing bodies and genitals due to some irrational arbitrary taboo.
> Again, thats an extremist misogynistic viewpoint. The real objections I’ve heard concern the exploitation of the industry and the lack of protections for workers.
What people say in public to look good is different from what they act out. Despite all the liberal attitudes in western europe for example, if you go to a brothel in Amsterdam, you won't see rich Dutch girls self-actualizing, or middle-class Norwegian girls expressing their empowered sexuality, but poor Bulgarians, Ukraininans, Hungarians, Roma, etc.
Sure there are exceptions. But overall even most of the enlightened liberal Western European parents don't actually want their daughter to become a pornstar or a prostitute. For reasons approximating my previous comment -- that they are worth more than their mere bodily appearance, etc.
> People dislike drug comsumers because they feel drugs are a cheat: you get unearned pleasure without having to work for it.
While I can certainly imagine someone feeling this way, I've never thought this and I've never heard anyone express this perspective. I think you may be imagining too hard.
While I can certainly imagine someone feeling this way, I've never thought this and I've never heard anyone express this perspective. I think you may be imagining too hard.
It's interesting to hear because I've been assuming this is obviously why people don't like people taking drugs. That it will drive kids away from productive stuff like studying because the joy of achieving something like academic or athletic success can't keep up with the bliss that drugs provide.
Why else? Perhaps you mean that drugs physically harm you, like you will become a methhead or crackhead with your teeth falling out etc? But that requires really sliding down the deep end...
Perhaps I was raised differently. As a kid, my parents told me upfront that drugs are awesome and people do them because they are really enjoyable not because junkies are evil mutant monsters who like to destroy their lives, and that the awesomeness is the danger in them, that they are empty enjoyment without deeper achievements etc.
This was in contrast to school finger wagging lectures, which just said that drugs are baaad and you must learn to say NO or you will destroy your health and life and drugs are poison and terrible and will eat your flesh (slides showing the effects of krokodil, and shady people in alleyways). Which just confused me because why such a big deal about poison that destroys your life? Why would anyone do this if it's so straightforwardly bad?
Why else? Perhaps you mean that drugs physically harm you, like you will become a methhead or crackhead with your teeth falling out etc? But that requires really sliding down the deep end...
Perhaps I was raised differently. As a kid, my parents told me upfront that drugs are awesome and people do them because they are really enjoyable not because junkies are evil mutant monsters who like to destroy their lives, and that the awesomeness is the danger in them, that they are empty enjoyment without deeper achievements etc.
This was in contrast to school finger wagging lectures, which just said that drugs are baaad and you must learn to say NO or you will destroy your health and life and drugs are poison and terrible and will eat your flesh (slides showing the effects of krokodil, and shady people in alleyways). Which just confused me because why such a big deal about poison that destroys your life? Why would anyone do this if it's so straightforwardly bad?
I think the main issue I have with drugs is when they have the possibility of harming others.
I don't mean to say all drugs and all doses have this effect. There are drugs and doses that can cause someone to go crazy and hurt people or damage property.
In the other hand, you also have a feeling of this person not being a productive member of society. My tax dollars go to fixing this persons' mistakes. I wouldn't complain if my tax dollars went to properly rehabilitating these people though.
In the other hand, you also have a feeling of this person not being a productive member of society. My tax dollars go to fixing this persons' mistakes. I wouldn't complain if my tax dollars went to properly rehabilitating these people though.
Drugs are a replacement for meaningful positive feedback from society, like achievements, progressing in life, being able to provide, getting things like love and respect, encouragement etc. etc. Drugs can keep one's attention away from this and release similar hormones you would from being a productive, recognized member of your community or society.
It is a chicken and egg problem though, like many others in life. Do people take drugs and therefore stop progressing in life or do they not see any other paths forward, any positive examples to follow (for whatever reason) and therefore turn to drugs, and it's perhaps one bad decision they can take out of lots of bad options from the cards they were dealt?
People rarely ruin their lives if they just experiment with drugs for recreation, self-discovery, psychedelic trips etc. if their life is in order, with healthy relationships, a pride in their work etc. The danger is mostly when it is a substitute for life/social achievements.
Similarly with porn and OnlyFans. It provides an intimacy to people who don't currently have the means/skills to get it in real life. But could they perhaps develop it if they put in more effort? Now the bitter kind of people would say it's not worth it, they will just cheat on you, trap you in marriage, the divorce you and take it, everyone is a golddigger or just wants to date assholes etc. etc. There's lots of ideologies for this. Again chicken and egg. Are you unable to form relationships because you spend so much time with fake intimacy, fake achievements in video games, fake virtue and validation on social media etc, or the other way around?
The underlying issues are societal and they aren't just about the surface level products and services.
It is a chicken and egg problem though, like many others in life. Do people take drugs and therefore stop progressing in life or do they not see any other paths forward, any positive examples to follow (for whatever reason) and therefore turn to drugs, and it's perhaps one bad decision they can take out of lots of bad options from the cards they were dealt?
People rarely ruin their lives if they just experiment with drugs for recreation, self-discovery, psychedelic trips etc. if their life is in order, with healthy relationships, a pride in their work etc. The danger is mostly when it is a substitute for life/social achievements.
Similarly with porn and OnlyFans. It provides an intimacy to people who don't currently have the means/skills to get it in real life. But could they perhaps develop it if they put in more effort? Now the bitter kind of people would say it's not worth it, they will just cheat on you, trap you in marriage, the divorce you and take it, everyone is a golddigger or just wants to date assholes etc. etc. There's lots of ideologies for this. Again chicken and egg. Are you unable to form relationships because you spend so much time with fake intimacy, fake achievements in video games, fake virtue and validation on social media etc, or the other way around?
The underlying issues are societal and they aren't just about the surface level products and services.
I've seen this take a few times.
It's common, at least in my bubble.
It's common, at least in my bubble.
I don't doubt that, but it definitely seems "fringe", while OP was presenting this as the general zeitgeist.
Are you sure it's not you who is in a bubble? Maybe in your circles it's just about the safety of the sex workers from abuse and trafficking, otherwise it's "yay, you go girl! $muscle_emoji" and "yay you go guy, for watching porn and satisfying your need for intimacy through onlyfans" (erm... wait...)
But there's lot of sneering like this https://9gag.com/gag/arVYxm5 spreading on social media, which is essentially that girls on onlyfans are going for the easy money instead of more "decent" work and career path. I know it's just a meme, I'm not defending a silly image as truth, just as the illustration of the viewpoint. The idea that there is a who-deserves-what aspect.
And perhaps you think the anti-porn Christians simply tell boys not to jerk it because of an irreducible argument that "Jesus doesn't like that", but to me it's pretty clear that there is a deeper Christian pattern underlying it, namely suffering/effort giving rise to reward, and that it's immoral to sidestep that, Garden of Eden, Christ paying for sins by suffering on the cross etc. The protestant ideal of hard work etc. Do these ideas seem foreign to you?
But there's lot of sneering like this https://9gag.com/gag/arVYxm5 spreading on social media, which is essentially that girls on onlyfans are going for the easy money instead of more "decent" work and career path. I know it's just a meme, I'm not defending a silly image as truth, just as the illustration of the viewpoint. The idea that there is a who-deserves-what aspect.
And perhaps you think the anti-porn Christians simply tell boys not to jerk it because of an irreducible argument that "Jesus doesn't like that", but to me it's pretty clear that there is a deeper Christian pattern underlying it, namely suffering/effort giving rise to reward, and that it's immoral to sidestep that, Garden of Eden, Christ paying for sins by suffering on the cross etc. The protestant ideal of hard work etc. Do these ideas seem foreign to you?
You have completely missed the mark and your comparison to drugs just shows how far off base you are. Largely people that are anti-drug have such a stance because of how addiction especially to "harder" drugs can completely consume and ruin people's lives. In the larger societal context addiction leads often to increased violence and increased crime as someone who is addicted and employable will do basically anything to get their next fix. In large part society sees the addict as a victim moreso than anything else.
This reaction somewhat supports my original comment. People have fundamentally different frameworks to view these things and the debates are therefore way deeper than just about porn and sex, and are rather about metaphysical value systems and the fundamental ideologies through which to interpret human life.
[deleted]
> and motivate men to work
Even this would make a moderate amount of sense if the work at least were meaningful. But it isn't - the only importance seems to be that the man in question appears to be successful in something, even if that work is actively harmful to society or the environment.
Even this would make a moderate amount of sense if the work at least were meaningful. But it isn't - the only importance seems to be that the man in question appears to be successful in something, even if that work is actively harmful to society or the environment.
At least it's useful for his family, and perhaps by extension to the local community.
[deleted]
> Everything in life is about sex, except sex. Sex is about power.
What? No. This is idiotic. Who said that?
What? No. This is idiotic. Who said that?
It was used in House of Cards.
It's a Fight Club (1999) quote.
It's also very similar to a quote from The Office (Robert California)
> Others may feel camgirls are collecting undeserved money, they don't do actual noble valuable work, just cash in based on their genetics and immorality.
As someone who is a supporter of legal sex work and pornography. The "cashing on genetics" part bothers me the most. I don't know how to process when good looking people can earn thousands of dollars almost doing nothing (particularly on digital platform like OnlyFans), whereas regular people have to work day and night to earn a living. Right now, when sex-work is stigmatized, it seems fair because they are getting paid a lot while suffering the stigma. Similar to a lot high-risk job is also high paying because of the high risk. But once sex work gets accepted in the society, then why should they get paid so much without the work like rest of the society. Maybe if sex-work gets destigmatized it will not be very high paying profession.
As someone who is a supporter of legal sex work and pornography. The "cashing on genetics" part bothers me the most. I don't know how to process when good looking people can earn thousands of dollars almost doing nothing (particularly on digital platform like OnlyFans), whereas regular people have to work day and night to earn a living. Right now, when sex-work is stigmatized, it seems fair because they are getting paid a lot while suffering the stigma. Similar to a lot high-risk job is also high paying because of the high risk. But once sex work gets accepted in the society, then why should they get paid so much without the work like rest of the society. Maybe if sex-work gets destigmatized it will not be very high paying profession.
> The "cashing on genetics" part bothers me the most
Well, welcome to all of life. More attractive people, taller men etc. get hired, promoted and trusted more. Not just in porn, not just in regular modeling or acting or singing, but also in any job. They get better options in the dating market.
Genetically more intelligent people have higher chances at high earning jobs.
The pattern on cashing on genetics is extremely widespread and it's also not entirely clear it can be abolished without screwing up society. We do need the right people for the right jobs. You don't want to watch ugly people's porn (except if that's your thing, no kink shaming implied!), or marry stupid people etc. etc. You may try to console yourself that individual hard work can override all that, and it can to a degree, but we like to kindle ourselves in the fairytale of the "just world fallacy". Reality is harsher.
Well, welcome to all of life. More attractive people, taller men etc. get hired, promoted and trusted more. Not just in porn, not just in regular modeling or acting or singing, but also in any job. They get better options in the dating market.
Genetically more intelligent people have higher chances at high earning jobs.
The pattern on cashing on genetics is extremely widespread and it's also not entirely clear it can be abolished without screwing up society. We do need the right people for the right jobs. You don't want to watch ugly people's porn (except if that's your thing, no kink shaming implied!), or marry stupid people etc. etc. You may try to console yourself that individual hard work can override all that, and it can to a degree, but we like to kindle ourselves in the fairytale of the "just world fallacy". Reality is harsher.
In the coming decades, this will start to become a very important question I fear. What happens when "cashing on genetics" is something you can buy. Children being primed with the "best" possible genetics to ensure they're the most attractive jawlines, and lips that pout "perfectly" created as if made in a factory.
Genetically being superior today is essentially a lottery, while then, it would be something you can buy. Imagine that society.
Genetically being superior today is essentially a lottery, while then, it would be something you can buy. Imagine that society.
Harari writes about this a lot in his book Homo Deus and 21 lessons. Up till now the rich and the poor still had a roughly egalitarian fundamental physical/biological existence. Sure, healthcare could extend and improve one's life to some degree even in the past but everyone is still fundamentally limited by the same intrinsic constraints. Rich people don't live 3 times as long, still suffer from diseases like Alzheimer, Parkinson, cancer etc.
But what if some people become fundamentally better, an actually clearly superior "race", ie the Nazi myths of superiority becoming fact (as applied to this new optimized race/new entity)?
Society isn't prepared to talk about it.
But what if some people become fundamentally better, an actually clearly superior "race", ie the Nazi myths of superiority becoming fact (as applied to this new optimized race/new entity)?
Society isn't prepared to talk about it.
It is definitely unfair, but is it any different to an intelligent person cashing in on their genetics? I have a very well paid job as a software engineer which comes relatively easily to me. As you say, lots of people have to work really hard just to make a living.
I don't think it's just the stigma, to be fair. Earning lots of money through OnlyFans requires more than good looks, in the same way that earning lots of money through a tech startup requires more than just writing code. Also, people have cashed in on genetics for as long as modelling as been around, and obviously sex work is even older than that
Haha entire evolution has been all about "cashing on genetics". As a society our aim should be to let people of a wide variety of genetics, cash in on their respective "lottery" instead of arbitrarily drawing lines at intelligence or even steadfastness or whatever else.
NB: Writing from a perspective of someone who grew up in a conservative society (Tier 2-3 city in India), and may have a different take.
Porn has become one of those buzzwords which triggers an emotional response and is used as a political tool by everyone. ("Taking away our culture and morally corrupting the young generation" is a common refrain heard around me by prominent people even today). I feel that anything which enters this realm where your first response is a strong emotional one (nationalism, criminal etc.) its very hard to get to a solution or even a way forward. Best is to maybe just change the word you use.
This article touches upon that, inviting readers to drop off if they are triggered by usage. I would say they need to read it more than those who are happy to read further and are not triggered. This is where the outrage about the NYT article had the unintended effect. The points were correct, but were not presented factually, and instead to trigger a moral outrage causing the payment processors to stop usage. To think of it, Pornhub was one of the few sites with financial power, resources, and motivation to put the stop to revenge porn and non consensual uploads. Asking to do that would not have scored any points for anyone. Maybe the solution I propose isnt right, but it is impossible to have that conversation given the vitriol internet generates for anything like a half cooked thought not agreeing to the mainstream idea.
Porn has become one of those buzzwords which triggers an emotional response and is used as a political tool by everyone. ("Taking away our culture and morally corrupting the young generation" is a common refrain heard around me by prominent people even today). I feel that anything which enters this realm where your first response is a strong emotional one (nationalism, criminal etc.) its very hard to get to a solution or even a way forward. Best is to maybe just change the word you use.
This article touches upon that, inviting readers to drop off if they are triggered by usage. I would say they need to read it more than those who are happy to read further and are not triggered. This is where the outrage about the NYT article had the unintended effect. The points were correct, but were not presented factually, and instead to trigger a moral outrage causing the payment processors to stop usage. To think of it, Pornhub was one of the few sites with financial power, resources, and motivation to put the stop to revenge porn and non consensual uploads. Asking to do that would not have scored any points for anyone. Maybe the solution I propose isnt right, but it is impossible to have that conversation given the vitriol internet generates for anything like a half cooked thought not agreeing to the mainstream idea.
Sorry to go off-topic, but I had not come across the concept of Indian city tiers before, and found it interesting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_of_Indian_citie...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_of_Indian_citie...
fwiw, the usual usage of the term (as in the above comment) is not the same as the highly specific government usage that the wiki page described.
The usual usage is just:
Tier 1: Metro cities, the ones you've likely heard of. Mumbai, Bangalore, Delhi etc.
Tier 2: Cities, but much smaller population-wise. These are the cities that are getting newer airports for eg. Most state-capitals would fall here. These count up to around 50 to 100 depending on who you ask. Linked to national highways usually.
Tier 3: Small urban towns. Population is usually a few lakh (1 lakh=100_000) at most. (<300k or so).
It more-or-less corresponds to the X/Y/Z usage on the wikipedia article.
The usual usage is just:
Tier 1: Metro cities, the ones you've likely heard of. Mumbai, Bangalore, Delhi etc.
Tier 2: Cities, but much smaller population-wise. These are the cities that are getting newer airports for eg. Most state-capitals would fall here. These count up to around 50 to 100 depending on who you ask. Linked to national highways usually.
Tier 3: Small urban towns. Population is usually a few lakh (1 lakh=100_000) at most. (<300k or so).
It more-or-less corresponds to the X/Y/Z usage on the wikipedia article.
Yes, same with China. Tier 1 = Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen, Guangzhou. Tier 2 is debatable but also cities have lot of economic activity / people that you would have heard of.
If one's culture can be taken away by porn, one hadn't much culture to begin with.
If one's morals can be corrupted by porn, one hadn't much morals to begin with.
Where porn exposes one's weaknesses, one should introspect to evolve, not tilt against windmills.
If one's morals can be corrupted by porn, one hadn't much morals to begin with.
Where porn exposes one's weaknesses, one should introspect to evolve, not tilt against windmills.
I think this logic is flawed as hell
It sounds like "we shouldnt help the weaker ones"
It sounds like "we shouldnt help the weaker ones"
> Taking away our culture and morally corrupting the young generation
It's 100% correct.
It's 100% correct.
Plenty has been written in this thread about the article's take on SV attitudes on sex workers. For the most part, I think the article is right. But there's another reason why tech orgs and banks don't want porn, which it completely ignores: the sheer quantity of bad actors around the industry. Chargebacks, disputes, hacking, spam, money laundering, content theft, stalking, child pornography, and so forth are all endemic to the porn industry. Sure there's gold in them thar hills, and lots of it, but the hills are being shelled and ninjas are hiding in every bush. Perhaps OnlyFans is finding a better path. Or maybe they're just in the early golden age before the same forces crowd in and shell them, too.
While what you say about bad actors is true, I just don't buy your argument. SV prides itself in solving "hard problems" (whether that's actually true is another issue entirely), so are you honestly saying that the issue with high chargeback rates or illegal content is too difficult to solve? I mean, SV can create advanced electric cars, launch rockets into space, serve millions of queries a second, but porn spam is too difficult?
I think the moralistic argument makes much more sense. Most of the VC types who want to "make it big" in SV do it not just for the money, but also for the approval of their peers and the praise of their Ivy-league brethren ("Wow, look how smart he is, he was one of the earliest investors in Facebook!") Making it big in porn just wouldn't have the same cachet, and would be a potential minefield of social opprobrium.
I think the moralistic argument makes much more sense. Most of the VC types who want to "make it big" in SV do it not just for the money, but also for the approval of their peers and the praise of their Ivy-league brethren ("Wow, look how smart he is, he was one of the earliest investors in Facebook!") Making it big in porn just wouldn't have the same cachet, and would be a potential minefield of social opprobrium.
Many have tried; there are a lot of bodies on those hills. Take chargebacks. Not only does the merchant who gets a chargeback lose the money, they're typically hit with a $20-$100 fee on top. It's very common and an old trick to use stolen credit cards, download all the premium content, and redistribute on your own site. Or maybe just because your spouse found the line item on your credit card and you're embarrassed. The chargeback rate for the adult industry is said to be about 15%; the vast majority of merchant accounts will drop you after reaching 1%.
Porn spam is an unbelievable technical challenge because it's so damn profitable. If you fight them you are fighting the best—and an army of hundreds of thousands of the not-so-best, who can overwhelm you with sheer numbers. Also the spammers tend to be vindictive kooks, and active efforts against them can bring DDoSes, swatting, and other unpleasantries down on you and yours.
Child porn and revenge porn are ever-present. You will have to moderate it, which means people will have to see the images. Also people like to use porn sites to distribute snuff imagery (videos of suffering/torture/death). Imagine the job of a Facebook moderator except ultra-concentrated.
I don't think the moralistic and execution arguments are opposed; rather they are an ill-virtued cycle of reinforcement. The industry is shady and filled with bad people because it's said to be shady and filled with bad people. I do expect SV & friends to keep trying, because there's just so much money!
Porn spam is an unbelievable technical challenge because it's so damn profitable. If you fight them you are fighting the best—and an army of hundreds of thousands of the not-so-best, who can overwhelm you with sheer numbers. Also the spammers tend to be vindictive kooks, and active efforts against them can bring DDoSes, swatting, and other unpleasantries down on you and yours.
Child porn and revenge porn are ever-present. You will have to moderate it, which means people will have to see the images. Also people like to use porn sites to distribute snuff imagery (videos of suffering/torture/death). Imagine the job of a Facebook moderator except ultra-concentrated.
I don't think the moralistic and execution arguments are opposed; rather they are an ill-virtued cycle of reinforcement. The industry is shady and filled with bad people because it's said to be shady and filled with bad people. I do expect SV & friends to keep trying, because there's just so much money!
Chargeback is significantly an issue due to scummy business practices in use by enough of the websites. $1 trials that auto-renew at $100 per year and other such predatory credit card pricing tactics. There’s a significant percentage of the industry that is reliant on these tactics to survive and it results in the huge difference in credit card chargebacks compared to other industries.
That said this is a situation that is slowly improving thanks to competition. However this is likely going to be a stain on the porn industry for decades after the problem is mostly gone due to the way the financial industry does risk analysis.
That said this is a situation that is slowly improving thanks to competition. However this is likely going to be a stain on the porn industry for decades after the problem is mostly gone due to the way the financial industry does risk analysis.
The question, why does not streaming sites for music and video have the problem where someone use a stolen credit cards, download all the premium content, and redistribute on your own site?
I would even assume that this is actually happening pretty regularly with different piracy scenes. If you want to rip content with as minimum amount of traceability, identity theft (cc fraud under a different name) would be high on the list. Afterward people can just copy the copies.
The question then is why would it be different for porn?
I would even assume that this is actually happening pretty regularly with different piracy scenes. If you want to rip content with as minimum amount of traceability, identity theft (cc fraud under a different name) would be high on the list. Afterward people can just copy the copies.
The question then is why would it be different for porn?
My guess: Most porn doesn’t have a mega-studio with mega-lawyers policing huge swaths of the net for violations. Most music and movies do.
Considering what the original idea behind Facemash was, I don't think the type of industry to achieve success in matters.
Porn spam is difficult in the same manner filter-evading YouTube clips are - it's human intelligence applied at scale. With highly motivated humans at that. It really is harder than all the things which you mentioned.
Porn spam is difficult in the same manner filter-evading YouTube clips are - it's human intelligence applied at scale. With highly motivated humans at that. It really is harder than all the things which you mentioned.
Imho the fact that porn-related “supposedly-technical” problems are still so prevalent, is an actual raincheck over SV’s claims of world-changing capabilities. In the end, SV dudes are mostly just pushing ads and marketing Chinese tech. When hard people-problems come up, be it fake news or scammers, they have no solution.
> I think the moralistic argument makes much more sense.
I find it absurdly laughable that you think that there is any moralistic response from Silicon Valley VCs who have funded outright theft and lawbreaking--and who also funded YouTube when it was primarily a porn distribution system.
People have made lots of money from porn over the years. The porn tech conference used to occur at the same time as CES--and often it was more technical than CES--things like Laserdics, DVDs, the web, online credit card tech, etc. all were at the porn conference long before the mainstream ones. One could make an uncharitable comment about it being more profitable to sell shovels in the gold rush than to be a miner/performer ...
The big issue with porn sites is that they only scale so far, and then it's a race to the bottom, and when you hit the bottom the law starts knocking on your door. So, you have to switch off porn before the race to the bottom starts if you want to scale further. And if you make make that change at the wrong time or in the wrong way, your site dies.
OnlyFans is in the race to the bottom now. There is always another girl who looks just as good who will do whatever thing you want for 10% less than that other girl. Do you really think that people really care whether they're watching Porn Star A or Porn Star B--or whether they care that Porn Star B is $10 less per <whatever>?
Sure, there will be some exceptions where a bunch of people want to see some famous Disney tart's naughty bits. The rest of the performers, however, are in the swamp.
OnlyFans broke the monopoly. Great! But then it will become the monopoly. The wheel simply turns.
I find it absurdly laughable that you think that there is any moralistic response from Silicon Valley VCs who have funded outright theft and lawbreaking--and who also funded YouTube when it was primarily a porn distribution system.
People have made lots of money from porn over the years. The porn tech conference used to occur at the same time as CES--and often it was more technical than CES--things like Laserdics, DVDs, the web, online credit card tech, etc. all were at the porn conference long before the mainstream ones. One could make an uncharitable comment about it being more profitable to sell shovels in the gold rush than to be a miner/performer ...
The big issue with porn sites is that they only scale so far, and then it's a race to the bottom, and when you hit the bottom the law starts knocking on your door. So, you have to switch off porn before the race to the bottom starts if you want to scale further. And if you make make that change at the wrong time or in the wrong way, your site dies.
OnlyFans is in the race to the bottom now. There is always another girl who looks just as good who will do whatever thing you want for 10% less than that other girl. Do you really think that people really care whether they're watching Porn Star A or Porn Star B--or whether they care that Porn Star B is $10 less per <whatever>?
Sure, there will be some exceptions where a bunch of people want to see some famous Disney tart's naughty bits. The rest of the performers, however, are in the swamp.
OnlyFans broke the monopoly. Great! But then it will become the monopoly. The wheel simply turns.
Given the huge variance in what different OnlyFans stars charge, clearly they are not completely fungible.
Sure, we have porn examples like Kim Kardashian. Apparently people don't consider her fungible--God knows why. And we obviously know that a sitting President pays about $100K for sex with a Playboy centerfold.
Simple question: Who was the most popular porn star 5 years ago? 10 years ago?
Most of the past porn stars lament how much the ubiquity of porn has reduced their escort/stripper revenues which were way more than their porn revenues ever were.
Just like everything that goes online, your customer base goes global but so does your competition. And the customer base is mostly men in developed rich countries while the competition is a lot of very pretty young women in very poor countries.
Simple question: Who was the most popular porn star 5 years ago? 10 years ago?
Most of the past porn stars lament how much the ubiquity of porn has reduced their escort/stripper revenues which were way more than their porn revenues ever were.
Just like everything that goes online, your customer base goes global but so does your competition. And the customer base is mostly men in developed rich countries while the competition is a lot of very pretty young women in very poor countries.
I'm glad that monetized platforms like Twitch and OnlyFans exist. It's an accessible way for the younger generations to make ludicrous amounts of money for not too much up-front investment. There's definitely work and downsides involved, just not like some lesser paid, more credentialed professions. Hopefully this puts pressure on the essential jobs in society to actually raise compensation in comparison.
The rest of us boring, unattractive folks will just have to settle for desk jobs.
The rest of us boring, unattractive folks will just have to settle for desk jobs.
I think it's better than the alternative, as it eliminates the middle man and the performers own the content. But I imagine it will end up like most platforms for content, yielding to superstar economics and a race to the bottom for everyone else whose work has become commoditized and faces unyielding competition for attention. The vast majority of creators on OnlyFans will likely not be able to support themselves I'd guess, or if they will it will only be as supplemental income (I'm saying based on looking at no data).
> But I imagine it will end up like most platforms for content, yielding to superstar economics and a race to the bottom for everyone else whose work has become commoditized and faces unyielding competition for attention.
With 700k creators earning a cumulative total of 700m, and a few of them earning hundreds of thousands or even millions, it sounds like it already has.
With 700k creators earning a cumulative total of 700m, and a few of them earning hundreds of thousands or even millions, it sounds like it already has.
By "the younger generations" you mean "the younger generations of women", since I can't imagine many men making as much money.
Is this really progress towards equality, or a generation of women self-objectifying themselves.
Is this really progress towards equality, or a generation of women self-objectifying themselves.
The only investment being that they're selling their body for money, and generating a negative presence online that doesn't help their future career aspirations. I don't think this is a good thing to encourage young people to do.
There's way more work that goes into making and maintaining that presence than just showing up with a body or personality. A lot is marketing, but it's not like traditional marketing you'd be taught at a university. They're figuring a lot of it out by trial and error, which is some amount of risk of getting it wrong. And popularity can swing quickly and dramatically so you can get fired by the internet mobs (more risk).
Not sure why it's a negative presence, either. Anyone who thinks it was a negative presence is not really someone you'd want a job from after making $10,000 - $100,000 a month.
Not sure why it's a negative presence, either. Anyone who thinks it was a negative presence is not really someone you'd want a job from after making $10,000 - $100,000 a month.
Read about discrimination and hostility former sex workers face. It is very real and can be pretty ugly.
Many employers won't hire you and will fire you if they find out - regardless how great worker you at. Plenty of prospective partners take issue with it or can't deal with feelings of resentment, jealousy etc.
Many employers won't hire you and will fire you if they find out - regardless how great worker you at. Plenty of prospective partners take issue with it or can't deal with feelings of resentment, jealousy etc.
It’s a negative presence because it presents the moral degeneration of society.
Do we really want to hold sex work in the same regard as being an entrepreneur or doctor? What kind of signal do you think that sends?
Do we really want to hold sex work in the same regard as being an entrepreneur or doctor? What kind of signal do you think that sends?
They are selling pictures of their body. The body gets nearly no wear and tear for the work.
There's only negative presence in the sense of haters. Would you also encourage young people to avoid being Black, or Muslim, because that's a "negative presence"?
There's only negative presence in the sense of haters. Would you also encourage young people to avoid being Black, or Muslim, because that's a "negative presence"?
I wonder if the transactional nature of the work has an impact on the workers' relationships with people.
there's always a cost.
there's always a cost.
Do you ask the same thing about waitressing and front of house retail work? Forced to put on a smile, be submissive and obedient and make a pretend connection to the customer purely to ease a transaction and get a larger tip? Does that have an impact on relationships with people?
yeah, those professions probably have a negative impact on relationships, too.
I would discourage young people from getting face tattoos. I think that's a better analogy.
Facial tattoos are a traditional practice for many ethnic groups. Many modern practitioners feel that they're reclaiming a practice that was persecuted under American Puritanism.
It's not that there can't be reasonable appearance standards; however, it would be incredibly disingenuous to claim that those standards are established within a neutral cultural atmosphere. I personally find white dudes with short or no hair (the skinhead/cop cut) threatening, but no one's ever going to make that disqualifying.
It's not that there can't be reasonable appearance standards; however, it would be incredibly disingenuous to claim that those standards are established within a neutral cultural atmosphere. I personally find white dudes with short or no hair (the skinhead/cop cut) threatening, but no one's ever going to make that disqualifying.
> Facial tattoos are a traditional practice for many ethnic groups. Many modern practitioners feel that they're reclaiming a practice that was persecuted under American Puritanism.
I'm curious about this: is there any record of actual Puritans persecuting someone explicitly for having a facial tattoo? (It is true, of course, that Puritans in England and the colonies did not have a modern perspective about the separation of church and state and persecuted minorities like the Quakers. A revulsion to their sense of justice is also pretty understandable, but justice was pretty rough back then, too.)
I'm curious about this: is there any record of actual Puritans persecuting someone explicitly for having a facial tattoo? (It is true, of course, that Puritans in England and the colonies did not have a modern perspective about the separation of church and state and persecuted minorities like the Quakers. A revulsion to their sense of justice is also pretty understandable, but justice was pretty rough back then, too.)
> I'm curious about this: is there any record of actual Puritans persecuting someone explicitly for having a facial tattoo?
Like “fundamentalism”, “Puritanism” is probably more commonly (outside of specific technical discussions of sectarian history or theology) used in a sense which does not refer specifically to the theological group the term technically denotes but a broader (but overlapping, not a superset) group defined largely by a set of traits stereotypical of the group designated by the technical term.
Like “fundamentalism”, “Puritanism” is probably more commonly (outside of specific technical discussions of sectarian history or theology) used in a sense which does not refer specifically to the theological group the term technically denotes but a broader (but overlapping, not a superset) group defined largely by a set of traits stereotypical of the group designated by the technical term.
Correct, as to my intent (I probably should not have capitalized the P). The taboo nature of facial tattoos is simply the evolution of a revulsion towards tattoos in general among "polite" American society. Until very recently, visible tattoos (and before that, tattoos of any kind) could be disqualifying for public-facing positions.
> Correct, as to my intent (I probably should not have capitalized the P). The taboo nature of facial tattoos is simply the evolution of a revulsion towards tattoos in general among "polite" American society. Until very recently, visible tattoos (and before that, tattoos of any kind) could be disqualifying for public-facing positions.
Thanks for clarifying; appreciated!
Thanks for clarifying; appreciated!
I'm confused as to why being black or muslim would be a "negative presence"...
In the context of
> doesn't help their future career aspirations
it fits perfectly (unfortunately).
> doesn't help their future career aspirations
it fits perfectly (unfortunately).
> doesn't help their future career aspirations
only if you confuse causation. If most black dudes have poorer career prospects, it doesn't mean it's only because they are black, there are a load of other correlating factors.
If women as a group did worse as a group because some do porn, you wouldn't say "Don't be a woman", you'd be more specific: "If you are a woman, don't do porn".
only if you confuse causation. If most black dudes have poorer career prospects, it doesn't mean it's only because they are black, there are a load of other correlating factors.
If women as a group did worse as a group because some do porn, you wouldn't say "Don't be a woman", you'd be more specific: "If you are a woman, don't do porn".
Being a mob hit-man will attract haters too.
If the moneys good, would you disregard that?
If the moneys good, would you disregard that?
What you do online has consequences. Not everyone is going to agree with your worldview.
Becoming a sex object is not a noble thing, and something you have full control over. You pulling race into this is completely irrelevant and a desperate grasping for straws. Race is not something you can control, and you subconsciously equating this to "negative presence" projects something on your behalf that I don't think helps you here.
Becoming a sex object is not a noble thing, and something you have full control over. You pulling race into this is completely irrelevant and a desperate grasping for straws. Race is not something you can control, and you subconsciously equating this to "negative presence" projects something on your behalf that I don't think helps you here.
What a super fascinating demonstration this thread is of why OnlyFans could never have been a Silicon Valley company.
I'm not going to risk getting pulled into any of the ten different arguments going on here, beyond stating that I consider it a very good thing to increase the agency of the most vulnerable members of this line of work. But suffice to say that with this level of vehement disagreement even on whether sex work has any sort of societal value at all, it's really no surprise that this lucrative opportunity has gone to a region that doesn't have these moral qualms.
And that is a little surprising, given that, as the author points out, Silicon Valley takes no issue with any number of other industries that have debatable moral consequences.
I'm not going to risk getting pulled into any of the ten different arguments going on here, beyond stating that I consider it a very good thing to increase the agency of the most vulnerable members of this line of work. But suffice to say that with this level of vehement disagreement even on whether sex work has any sort of societal value at all, it's really no surprise that this lucrative opportunity has gone to a region that doesn't have these moral qualms.
And that is a little surprising, given that, as the author points out, Silicon Valley takes no issue with any number of other industries that have debatable moral consequences.
Does selling advertisements for cars or penis pills provide societal value? I think a lot of things we do don't have societal value but we do it because there's a demand in the market for it.
A lot of human activity isn't about value creation but zero sum competition for limited resources, rent seeking, striving for a relatively higher spot in the status hierarchy, reallocation of wealth, fight for power over each other etc.
> I'm not going to .., beyond stating..
So basically, you only want to state your own opinion, and not hear the many that disagree with you?
Then why not put it on a personal blog, rather than a site intended for discussion?
So basically, you only want to state your own opinion, and not hear the many that disagree with you?
Then why not put it on a personal blog, rather than a site intended for discussion?
I like how people think the media they consume isn't porn.
It's almost the exact same experience of aspiration, hope, envy, release, etc. Even though it's all media, and yet we say the sex media is taboo, when reality is these representations of what we perceive to be powerful and desirable are all the same thing.
When I wrote for magazines, and after we got into the drinks, I'd have this same conversation with some of the more bourgeois writers and editors, who insisted they were prim and serious, but when it came down to it, they were in the porn business, just the fancy kind.
Whether you are looking at naked people, expensive clothing, cars, or even very serious and meaningful political commentary - it's all on a spectrum of sensational pornography. Even renowned fashion photographer Helmut Newton famously talked about the store Hermès as the world's most exclusive sex shop. He understood it, and he knew exactly what he was doing.
The only difference is in the aesthetics and beliefs the pornography reinforces.
It's almost the exact same experience of aspiration, hope, envy, release, etc. Even though it's all media, and yet we say the sex media is taboo, when reality is these representations of what we perceive to be powerful and desirable are all the same thing.
When I wrote for magazines, and after we got into the drinks, I'd have this same conversation with some of the more bourgeois writers and editors, who insisted they were prim and serious, but when it came down to it, they were in the porn business, just the fancy kind.
Whether you are looking at naked people, expensive clothing, cars, or even very serious and meaningful political commentary - it's all on a spectrum of sensational pornography. Even renowned fashion photographer Helmut Newton famously talked about the store Hermès as the world's most exclusive sex shop. He understood it, and he knew exactly what he was doing.
The only difference is in the aesthetics and beliefs the pornography reinforces.
> Why did it take this long? Why would no one else have the courage to address sex work?
OnlyFans isn't the only tech attempt to “address sex work”, it's basically a hybrid of the premium user content with centralized content infrastructure model of many recorded-video sites with the patronage / p2p subscription model of Patreon, etc. It may (or may not) be revolutionary in effect, but it's a stepwise change in model building on other recent stepwise changes.
It's not something that came out of nowhere after a long period of no innovation.
OnlyFans isn't the only tech attempt to “address sex work”, it's basically a hybrid of the premium user content with centralized content infrastructure model of many recorded-video sites with the patronage / p2p subscription model of Patreon, etc. It may (or may not) be revolutionary in effect, but it's a stepwise change in model building on other recent stepwise changes.
It's not something that came out of nowhere after a long period of no innovation.
For a better picture, there were many people back then trying to monetize their adult content on Patreon - well, until Patreon started to ban them aggresively, which eventually gave rise to OnlyFans. It’s right that OnlyFans didn’t do anything substantially innovative, but the main point of the article still stands - tech companies have have failed to provide agency for adult creators for a long time.
Clips4Sale existed long before OnlyFans but doesn’t enjoy the same success. I guess it’s all about the subscription.
This guy seems to be operating on the assumption that MEN are to blame for pornography's status as a social pariah. As if mothers everywhere would be proud of their daughters producing pornography on Onlyfans if only their husbands weren't in their ear shaming them.
Men are a big part of it but patriarchy is promulgated by all of society, not just men.
Then perhaps "patriarchy" is a misleading name.
The author is trying to hijack contemporary moral outrage against legitimate cases of sexism to try to legitimize a pimp business.
And you’re trying to hijack moral outrage against these people by calling it a pimp business, are you not?
Those same mothers would likely be very glad if their daughter got a man with a well paying job, lots of money, and a big house. They think more in terms of their generation, how women's access to status worked back when they were young. Onlyfans opens a different way for attractive women to attain wealth. Much safer, and with way less pain involved than going through a marriage that was done for the money instead of for love, plus a painful divorce afterwards.
There are millennials with teenage daughters now. Older mothers with teenages daughters grew up watching Madonna videos on MTV. I'll need more explanation to understand the generational gap you're describing.
Well that is a truly cynical perspective on life and marriage.
Not every marriage is that way, there are many marriages where real love exists for decades. Those are a great ideal to strive for! But status and wealth is and remains a big component in the dating market.
agree :) The reason status and wealth remains big is most people wants easy life. And we people are taught we should work hard to earn money from school level. Society say we should become Doctor/engineer/High Level Manager at least where I live. If we can marry rich people and live happy life why not?
[deleted]
jejejfjf(2)
> This guy seems to be operating on the assumption that MEN are to blame for pornography's status as a social pariah
It's called the patriarchy for a reason. I don't know about you, but the priests I see ranting about pornography, the politicians I see talking about regulating it, the police who harass sex workers, people running groups like nofap, so on and so on, are men.
Yes of course women also contribute to it. But when I read the article, I didn't so much see it as blaming men, as explaining how the current social system is organized, and how that relates to gender. This is the point of the critical study of gender (AKA Women's Studies), not laying blame, but describing the system and how to confront it.
Not understanding that, treating it like someone is trying to blame an entire gender, rather than simply explaining how we got here, is why people make jokes about fragile masculinity and snowflakes on the right.
It's called the patriarchy for a reason. I don't know about you, but the priests I see ranting about pornography, the politicians I see talking about regulating it, the police who harass sex workers, people running groups like nofap, so on and so on, are men.
Yes of course women also contribute to it. But when I read the article, I didn't so much see it as blaming men, as explaining how the current social system is organized, and how that relates to gender. This is the point of the critical study of gender (AKA Women's Studies), not laying blame, but describing the system and how to confront it.
Not understanding that, treating it like someone is trying to blame an entire gender, rather than simply explaining how we got here, is why people make jokes about fragile masculinity and snowflakes on the right.
> It's called the patriarchy for a reason
That reason being, this is what many feminists think. And the rest of society don't call it the patriarchy for a reason too.
There are plenty female Catholics, even if there priests aren't (what about nuns?), Politicians/police follow societal cues. AFAIK, nofap has little to do with disdain for porn, and the people involved hardly represent society.
> as explaining how the current social system is organized
highlighting that the industry is run by men is otherwise irrelevant; unless you are blaming this fact as relevant.
> Not understanding that
There is nothing to "understand", this is just your opinion, not established fact. People do indeed make jokes about "fragile masculinity" etc - and those people are feminists, and there are plenty of jokes at their expense too (and afaik "snowflake" is usually applied to the left).
That reason being, this is what many feminists think. And the rest of society don't call it the patriarchy for a reason too.
There are plenty female Catholics, even if there priests aren't (what about nuns?), Politicians/police follow societal cues. AFAIK, nofap has little to do with disdain for porn, and the people involved hardly represent society.
> as explaining how the current social system is organized
highlighting that the industry is run by men is otherwise irrelevant; unless you are blaming this fact as relevant.
> Not understanding that
There is nothing to "understand", this is just your opinion, not established fact. People do indeed make jokes about "fragile masculinity" etc - and those people are feminists, and there are plenty of jokes at their expense too (and afaik "snowflake" is usually applied to the left).
>NoFap
How is people recognising that they have a problem and are unhealthily addicted to something somehow a bad thing?
High speed ultra hd pornogrpahy desensitises the mind into looking for constantly more "extreme" content leading to a race to the bottom with many losing desire for the "normal".
There's nothing wrong with that. Putting Porn on this pedestals where it's all good and there's nothing wrong with it is as bad as making it some sort of extreme horrible thing that we must shame and hide. Moderation is good.
How is people recognising that they have a problem and are unhealthily addicted to something somehow a bad thing?
High speed ultra hd pornogrpahy desensitises the mind into looking for constantly more "extreme" content leading to a race to the bottom with many losing desire for the "normal".
There's nothing wrong with that. Putting Porn on this pedestals where it's all good and there's nothing wrong with it is as bad as making it some sort of extreme horrible thing that we must shame and hide. Moderation is good.
This article is conflating a lack of involvement from tech as some kind of exploitation and complicitness in itself, I think that's a pretty unfair take. The adult industry is wildly exploitive and I don't think choosing not to start a business in that industry should be a mark against someone.
I must also suggest that if you're looking to SV to use tech to bring ethics to adult work, you're barking up the wrong tree. We should be thankful SV hasn't stepped in to "disrupt" the industry, with it's track record of privacy violations and exploitation of user data it's the absolute worst match up for a privacy sensitive industry like adult work. I don't think techs lack of involvement is out of the kindness of it's heart anyway, I think it's a risk avoidance outcome.
I must also suggest that if you're looking to SV to use tech to bring ethics to adult work, you're barking up the wrong tree. We should be thankful SV hasn't stepped in to "disrupt" the industry, with it's track record of privacy violations and exploitation of user data it's the absolute worst match up for a privacy sensitive industry like adult work. I don't think techs lack of involvement is out of the kindness of it's heart anyway, I think it's a risk avoidance outcome.
I joke with friends that the internet was invented by porn coders - back in the 90s, porn companies would pay college kids to deliver more porn faster, cheaper (with perl). Before that it was porn BBSes doing the same thing, people would pay for dialup access to download. Porn delivery has been on the forefront of pushing certain areas of tech for a long time, it's just not openly acceptable.
You go back a ways and that was certainly a trope and there was some truth to it. Pre-ISPs for the general public, even commercial private BBSs that were discussion boards and file distribution points for lots of non-porn purposes, definitely had a big porn part and it wouldn't surprise me if that's what drove most of their subscriptions.
This is a super good read, if you have 10 minutes I highly recommend. I have absolutely no problems with pornography and if my own daughter decided this was the industry she wanted to enter I would help jumpstart her career anyway I could just as I would any career she chose. My wife and I are very free spirits and the previous HN discussions on Pornhub / NYT article made me feel like I was taking crazy pills and living in 1850’s Victorian England. The pearl clutching was so intense I was very worried the pearls would break from pressure!
The vast majority of those that enter the sex business are consenting adults with free agency and control over their own actions. That some people are angry later and feel shame is a result of society disapproving of their decision rather than genuine harm caused to them. We need to change attitudes towards sex work to remove the shame rather than stop entry into a massively popular and universal industry that crosses all cultures.
Vice - and by that I mean sex, drugs, and rock and roll - is best consumed in moderation and the human experience is improved because of it. Prohibition and outlawing massively popular industries drives them underground but does not eliminate the demand, overall harming the people who work in the business. The insane shutdown of Backpage, a website whose operators worked closely with law enforcement, just drove the prostitution industry underground and made it even harder for detectives to do their jobs. Furthermore the internet is global and shutting down western sites just moves them offshore where they are just as easily accessible but basically impossible to shut down.
In summation I applaud OnlyFans and wish that there was less shame and more support to employees of businesses like pornography that provide massive enjoyment and receive tons of hate for literally zero reason when analyzed rationally.
The vast majority of those that enter the sex business are consenting adults with free agency and control over their own actions. That some people are angry later and feel shame is a result of society disapproving of their decision rather than genuine harm caused to them. We need to change attitudes towards sex work to remove the shame rather than stop entry into a massively popular and universal industry that crosses all cultures.
Vice - and by that I mean sex, drugs, and rock and roll - is best consumed in moderation and the human experience is improved because of it. Prohibition and outlawing massively popular industries drives them underground but does not eliminate the demand, overall harming the people who work in the business. The insane shutdown of Backpage, a website whose operators worked closely with law enforcement, just drove the prostitution industry underground and made it even harder for detectives to do their jobs. Furthermore the internet is global and shutting down western sites just moves them offshore where they are just as easily accessible but basically impossible to shut down.
In summation I applaud OnlyFans and wish that there was less shame and more support to employees of businesses like pornography that provide massive enjoyment and receive tons of hate for literally zero reason when analyzed rationally.
For what it's worth, I agree with you, and I'm shocked at the attitudes here. Don't worry, you're not the crazy one.
I wrote a few lines of speculation, but all of them would piss people off. Suffice to say, just ignore the negativity and express your opinions thoughtfully, as you did here.
I wrote a few lines of speculation, but all of them would piss people off. Suffice to say, just ignore the negativity and express your opinions thoughtfully, as you did here.
> We need to change attitudes towards sex work to remove the shame rather than stop entry into a massively popular and universal industry that crosses all cultures.
Legalizing, but heavily regulating vices is definitely the way to go. I think a lot of European countries have good models for this (Switzerland and Amsterdam come to mind). The demand for these things is going to exist, and is usually best if it is legalized and put into red light districts / out of public, etc.
That said, social tolerance should not devolve into some sort of forced social acceptance for the "liberation" of sex work. Just as any woman should be free to engage in sex work, I should be free to judge her for it (just as my girlfriend would be justified in asking about whether I ever purchased sex work). Just as anyone should be able to eat what they want, health consequences be damned, I should be able to call them "fat" instead of whatever PC word people use these days like "rotund" or "plus-sized", etc. Both of those are choices, and adults have to accept the consequences of those choices (unlike inherent things like sexual orientation or skin color). I cannot go and get a bunch of face tattoos and then whine about lack of acceptance when I get turned down for client-facing tech jobs.
You can't have your cake (engage in sex work, on either side of the transaction) and eat it too (complain about how society does not accept your decision with open arms). It's ironic that folks who are all about "freedom" are more than willing to call the Thought Police because society doesn't agree with them.
There's also a difference between certain things that had been considered taboo / forbidden but are now accepted vs. sex work and drugs: the ends do not justify the means. Allowing gay marriage provides an ends (i.e. more people, LGBTQ folks, who can live on equal legal footing as hetero folks) that more than justify the means (accepting that societally and legally). Legalizing drugs that allow folks to alter their conscience more than justifies the legalizing and shift in attitude.
What are the ends / results for sex work? While certain sex workers may make an inordinate amount of cash (which is certainly their right to do in a free market exchange), sex work does not provide a net benefit to society. It ruins relationships (e.g. infidelity with porn or physical sex acts, harming unwitting partners and children of the transgressors) and prevents them from even starting (e.g. stunted personal development due to excessive porn use, as I have seen in a lot of my male colleagues who were the first generation to grow up with high speed internet porn and are now in their early 30s and have no idea how to connect with a partner as a human being and not just a sex object; or in women who sell their bodies one way or another and then end up in no relationship or in an abusive or otherwise substandard relationship because they neglected to build career and interpersonal skills that could benefit them and their pursuit towards self-actualization).
Although these harms cannot and should not be regulated against by the government, it would be reckless to encourage ignorance of the societal harms.
Legalizing, but heavily regulating vices is definitely the way to go. I think a lot of European countries have good models for this (Switzerland and Amsterdam come to mind). The demand for these things is going to exist, and is usually best if it is legalized and put into red light districts / out of public, etc.
That said, social tolerance should not devolve into some sort of forced social acceptance for the "liberation" of sex work. Just as any woman should be free to engage in sex work, I should be free to judge her for it (just as my girlfriend would be justified in asking about whether I ever purchased sex work). Just as anyone should be able to eat what they want, health consequences be damned, I should be able to call them "fat" instead of whatever PC word people use these days like "rotund" or "plus-sized", etc. Both of those are choices, and adults have to accept the consequences of those choices (unlike inherent things like sexual orientation or skin color). I cannot go and get a bunch of face tattoos and then whine about lack of acceptance when I get turned down for client-facing tech jobs.
You can't have your cake (engage in sex work, on either side of the transaction) and eat it too (complain about how society does not accept your decision with open arms). It's ironic that folks who are all about "freedom" are more than willing to call the Thought Police because society doesn't agree with them.
There's also a difference between certain things that had been considered taboo / forbidden but are now accepted vs. sex work and drugs: the ends do not justify the means. Allowing gay marriage provides an ends (i.e. more people, LGBTQ folks, who can live on equal legal footing as hetero folks) that more than justify the means (accepting that societally and legally). Legalizing drugs that allow folks to alter their conscience more than justifies the legalizing and shift in attitude.
What are the ends / results for sex work? While certain sex workers may make an inordinate amount of cash (which is certainly their right to do in a free market exchange), sex work does not provide a net benefit to society. It ruins relationships (e.g. infidelity with porn or physical sex acts, harming unwitting partners and children of the transgressors) and prevents them from even starting (e.g. stunted personal development due to excessive porn use, as I have seen in a lot of my male colleagues who were the first generation to grow up with high speed internet porn and are now in their early 30s and have no idea how to connect with a partner as a human being and not just a sex object; or in women who sell their bodies one way or another and then end up in no relationship or in an abusive or otherwise substandard relationship because they neglected to build career and interpersonal skills that could benefit them and their pursuit towards self-actualization).
Although these harms cannot and should not be regulated against by the government, it would be reckless to encourage ignorance of the societal harms.
I thought a lot about your comment. This is what bugs me:
That said, social tolerance should not devolve into some sort of forced social acceptance for the "liberation" of sex work. Just as any woman should be free to engage in sex work, I should be free to judge her for it
What exactly are you judging her for? For being comfortable with her body?
That said, social tolerance should not devolve into some sort of forced social acceptance for the "liberation" of sex work. Just as any woman should be free to engage in sex work, I should be free to judge her for it
What exactly are you judging her for? For being comfortable with her body?
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Just as a sex worker can choose to engage in their activities because they are of the opinion that it is okay, one can certainly choose to have a negative opinion of their choice. As long as those opinions don't turn into adverse action (e.g. banning one's rights to engage in sex work) I don't see what the consequences of having opinions is.
Personally, I choose to avoid people who choose the easy path in life and refuse to accept reality or be accountable for their actions. Whether it's people refusing to admit that they have an addiction (to porn, drugs, alcohol, sex, gambling, video games) or women engaging in sex work and then complaining of the consequences (e.g. not being able to find the partner they want after they quit doing sex work), people who don't take responsibility for their choices given their circumstances, whatever they may be, are unpleasant to be around at best (often complaining about how unfair things are) and are dangerous at worst. If the circumstances are that some woman does sex work because she comes from an impoverished background and desperately needs financial freedom, I understand why she may choose sex work (though I really wish there were institutions in place so that she didn't have to make that choice; late-stage capitalism has made the world a harsh place). If she does it because she can make a lot of money and wants nice luxuries, I know that that sort of person and I would have no overlap in our worldview. As another example, I decided to cut out some close male friends of mine in certain athletic endeavors when they started using performance-enhancing drugs.
It's nothing about some form of prudish morality. It's about not wanting to associate with anyone who makes key choices in their life that I think reveal a certain morality that I don't agree with. Everyone has this right (to free association) and I don't think any sort forced association should be palatable to anyone living in a country with modern governance.
Personally, I choose to avoid people who choose the easy path in life and refuse to accept reality or be accountable for their actions. Whether it's people refusing to admit that they have an addiction (to porn, drugs, alcohol, sex, gambling, video games) or women engaging in sex work and then complaining of the consequences (e.g. not being able to find the partner they want after they quit doing sex work), people who don't take responsibility for their choices given their circumstances, whatever they may be, are unpleasant to be around at best (often complaining about how unfair things are) and are dangerous at worst. If the circumstances are that some woman does sex work because she comes from an impoverished background and desperately needs financial freedom, I understand why she may choose sex work (though I really wish there were institutions in place so that she didn't have to make that choice; late-stage capitalism has made the world a harsh place). If she does it because she can make a lot of money and wants nice luxuries, I know that that sort of person and I would have no overlap in our worldview. As another example, I decided to cut out some close male friends of mine in certain athletic endeavors when they started using performance-enhancing drugs.
It's nothing about some form of prudish morality. It's about not wanting to associate with anyone who makes key choices in their life that I think reveal a certain morality that I don't agree with. Everyone has this right (to free association) and I don't think any sort forced association should be palatable to anyone living in a country with modern governance.
>Everyone is entitled to their own opinions.
Of course. It's practically axiomatic. Which is why it is strange you brought up one particular opinion.
Of course. It's practically axiomatic. Which is why it is strange you brought up one particular opinion.
> What are the ends / results for sex work? While certain sex workers may make an inordinate amount of cash (which is certainly their right to do in a free market exchange), sex work does not provide a net benefit to society. It ruins relationships (e.g. infidelity with porn or physical sex acts, harming unwitting partners and children of the transgressors) and prevents them from even starting (e.g. stunted personal development due to excessive porn use, as I have seen in a lot of my male colleagues who were the first generation to grow up with high speed internet porn and are now in their early 30s and have no idea how to connect with a partner as a human being and not just a sex object; or in women who sell their bodies one way or another and then end up in no relationship or in an abusive or otherwise substandard relationship because they neglected to build career and interpersonal skills that could benefit them and their pursuit towards self-actualization).
A lot of what you said makes some sense but I definitely lost you there. If you are seriously disabled, your partner has died, you are very old, or have any sort of issue that makes it impossible to have a normal sex life or have any chance of finding a partner that is young and attractive, this is certainly ethically OK to trade money for temporary sexual activity. This is a free exchange between consenting partners.
"Net benefit to society" is the dumbest part of what you said here. By definition two consenting adults trading anything - baseball cards, lawn mowing, sexual activity - is mutually beneficial or they would not have conducted the exchange. Society is better overall when your arbitrary restrictions on what two consenting people can do is removed, as my beliefs on what should be banned are different from yours and different from the guy down the street, so it's better to default that anything that doesn't harm me and is between two consenting people is fine for them.
I get an overall attitude from you that sex is something morally bad. I am friends with a pair of swingers and have witnessed them meet another couple who was into the same thing, leave the party to consummate the relationship, and return a few hours later as if nothing had happened. For some people sex is just something they do and is separate from emotional commitment.
The fact some people watch porn and cannot connect with others intimately does not mean everyone is this way. Just as not everyone who tries cocaine becomes a drug addict, not everyone who watches porn becomes sexually broken. My wife and I have a very healthy sexual relationship and we are both OK with each other viewing erotic material, either together or personally.
I think you need to broaden your horizons about what the totality of human experience is and accept there are many who live very fulfilling lives unencumbered by arbitrary rules on sexual expression.
A lot of what you said makes some sense but I definitely lost you there. If you are seriously disabled, your partner has died, you are very old, or have any sort of issue that makes it impossible to have a normal sex life or have any chance of finding a partner that is young and attractive, this is certainly ethically OK to trade money for temporary sexual activity. This is a free exchange between consenting partners.
"Net benefit to society" is the dumbest part of what you said here. By definition two consenting adults trading anything - baseball cards, lawn mowing, sexual activity - is mutually beneficial or they would not have conducted the exchange. Society is better overall when your arbitrary restrictions on what two consenting people can do is removed, as my beliefs on what should be banned are different from yours and different from the guy down the street, so it's better to default that anything that doesn't harm me and is between two consenting people is fine for them.
I get an overall attitude from you that sex is something morally bad. I am friends with a pair of swingers and have witnessed them meet another couple who was into the same thing, leave the party to consummate the relationship, and return a few hours later as if nothing had happened. For some people sex is just something they do and is separate from emotional commitment.
The fact some people watch porn and cannot connect with others intimately does not mean everyone is this way. Just as not everyone who tries cocaine becomes a drug addict, not everyone who watches porn becomes sexually broken. My wife and I have a very healthy sexual relationship and we are both OK with each other viewing erotic material, either together or personally.
I think you need to broaden your horizons about what the totality of human experience is and accept there are many who live very fulfilling lives unencumbered by arbitrary rules on sexual expression.
{part 2}
It really breaks my heart in these comments when people say they'd encourage their daughters to engage in sex work if they chose it (or, on the opposite side of the coin, encourage their sons to hire prostitutes or explore their sexuality through isolated encounters with algorithmically suggested, endlessly-streaming high-def porn videos). These activities have serious consequences on one's future due to social stigma (for engaging in sex work) or one's social growth / personal development due to neuroanatomical changes (primarily men, but women as well I'd venture). Whereas my Irish Catholic ancestors avoided broaching the subject through religious damnation and even more extreme social stigma, it feels like the version of this non-conversation that is had under the guise of "free sexuality", i.e. "just explore your sexual urges on your own I'm sure you'll figure it out", is equally problematic. The pendulum has swung too far from overbearing guidance to absolutely none at all (and, in fact, encouragement). In the middle is where the conversations should be had. The conversation has to be based in reality, i.e. that actions have consequences (social stigma of sex work or the rewiring of one's brain to hypernormal stimuli during formative years), that everyone has a complex web of feelings, and that understanding how those feelings and emotions involving one's sex life is very important for long-term fulfillment.
As I think we both agree, the best decisions and interactions are made when all parties involved are made fully aware of the benefits and consequences of each course of action. Pretending that sexuality is an exception to this is unwise at best.
I understand that a lot of the most inspiring people in the world were the ones who had a vision of a better reality and brought it into being (Ghandi, MLK, both Roosevelt presidents, Nelson Mandela, Steve Jobs, etc), but encouraging kids to take that path when it goes against social stigma and neuroscience in regards to human sexuality will almost certainly not result in their success.
It really breaks my heart in these comments when people say they'd encourage their daughters to engage in sex work if they chose it (or, on the opposite side of the coin, encourage their sons to hire prostitutes or explore their sexuality through isolated encounters with algorithmically suggested, endlessly-streaming high-def porn videos). These activities have serious consequences on one's future due to social stigma (for engaging in sex work) or one's social growth / personal development due to neuroanatomical changes (primarily men, but women as well I'd venture). Whereas my Irish Catholic ancestors avoided broaching the subject through religious damnation and even more extreme social stigma, it feels like the version of this non-conversation that is had under the guise of "free sexuality", i.e. "just explore your sexual urges on your own I'm sure you'll figure it out", is equally problematic. The pendulum has swung too far from overbearing guidance to absolutely none at all (and, in fact, encouragement). In the middle is where the conversations should be had. The conversation has to be based in reality, i.e. that actions have consequences (social stigma of sex work or the rewiring of one's brain to hypernormal stimuli during formative years), that everyone has a complex web of feelings, and that understanding how those feelings and emotions involving one's sex life is very important for long-term fulfillment.
As I think we both agree, the best decisions and interactions are made when all parties involved are made fully aware of the benefits and consequences of each course of action. Pretending that sexuality is an exception to this is unwise at best.
I understand that a lot of the most inspiring people in the world were the ones who had a vision of a better reality and brought it into being (Ghandi, MLK, both Roosevelt presidents, Nelson Mandela, Steve Jobs, etc), but encouraging kids to take that path when it goes against social stigma and neuroscience in regards to human sexuality will almost certainly not result in their success.
{part 1}
I apologize for going too far here. I'm certainly bringing my own bias to bear which is worth mentioning: some relatives of mine have had their marriages blow up because their husbands were engaging in sexual conduct outside of their relationship behind my relative' backs. The amount I care about my extended family and the effect it had/has on them (especially my (step-?) nieces and nephews) certainly biases me a lot.
Sex is great, and an important part of life. I fundamentally agree that action between two consenting parties that does not affect any third parties (e.g. my relatives / their kids in the above example) is totally fine, from drugs to porn to swingers or anything else. Even though I prefer monogamy, I don't think it's some societal downfall if people engage in activity I wouldn't participate in myself.
However, I think it's hard to deny biology, specifically brain development in children and the effects of porn and (separately) the drive to reproduce.
Brain development: I find this disconnect between people who are roughly >35 years old and those who are younger: men in the latter category grew up having access to unlimited video porn on the various "tube sites" since their preteen years, whereas in the former category these tube sites are something one likely stumbled upon as in early adulthood or later. Exposure to this type of pornography (vs. something like a VHS tape or a playboy issue) in the younger cohort, specifically for men, is very different from the older cohort's experience; whereas the older group learned about their sexuality in an environment that was not very different from that of prior generations, the younger group received (and receives) a level of stimulation through these tube sites that wires their brains differently at a formative point in their lives (roughly, the teen years). The unlimited, unfiltered exposure to every type of sexual act under the sun, without context or education, influences how the younger cohort (especially men) views sex. Consensual sex, be it swinging or porn or anything else, is not what is taught; porn tends to portray that sexual acts are about self-fulfillment, not mutual fulfillment. I say "tends to" because I must admit I don't know about the myriad categories that must exist now, but I'm guessing the category of "person A and person B do [some sexual act] and then cuddle while expressing their love for each other and discussing their future plans" is not near the top of that list.
Reproduction drive: the drive to procreate is hard-wired as one of, if not the most important aspects of all animals, and the human brain is built upon a very deep animal "core" (Thinking, Fast and Slow [0] gives a good deal of evidence about the ancient and modern brains). That proclivity, combined with the ease of access to porn, creates a problematic situation. The things you mentioned are either a) difficult to access or have legal consequences (e.g. cocaine) but have a strong influence on one's neurology or b) easy to access but are less prone to activating some primal drive inadvertently (e.g. lawn mowing, baseball cards, though I'm sure even something like baseball cards can become an addiction). Porn falls into both categories. This ease of feeling good or relieved through porn can definitely cause addiction (see all of the nofap stuff on reddit or on other forums). The desire to exchange money for instantly feeling like someone desires you, up to and including in a sexual way (i.e. through prostitution, or perhaps some very intimate only fans interaction), can certainly drive men to eagerly lust after such options if the only other option is to face up to the hard facts about one's choices or shortcomings in life (although I posit that this latter action will lead to more fulfillment).
On top of all of this, you have tech companies, who have honed their suggestion algorithms to suggest the perfect video to each viewer, exploiting these neurologic drives to increase view time in order to get more ad revenue. Just as these algorithms have thrust fringe conspiracies and fear or anger inducing videos towards people on youtube, it has thrust videos that exploit the human sexual drive towards the viewers, which in turn causes more of such videos to be produced. As I stated in the paragraph about brain development, I doubt these videos encapsulate very many, if any, of the important aspects of healthy sexual interaction (e.g. open and honest discussions about what boundaries to draw, the meaning one sees in sex).
> Society is better overall when your arbitrary restrictions on what two consenting people can do is removed, as my beliefs on what should be banned are different from yours and different from the guy down the street, so it's better to default that anything that doesn't harm me and is between two consenting people is fine for them.
I agree with you that these things (drug usage, sexual acts) should /not/ be banned. Any sort of government intervention is certainly a net loss in terms of the outcome of both the individuals involved in the activity /and/ society as a whole. There are too many people in prison in the name of the war on drugs (costing money in both the short term to house them, and in the long term when counting the contributions they could have been making, not to mention the ethical malfeasance of it), Alan Turing was chemically castrated for being gay, etc. When the government gets involved in people's choices that don't harm other people, it generally ends poorly.
However, I think it's dangerous to expect that most people, especially adolescents, will successfully navigate their discovery and understanding of their sexuality and preferences when they are exposed to hypernormal sexual stimuli that tries to hijack their sexual urges to turn their watch time into profit. I don't think that these tubes sites have anyone's sexual health in mind, both the consumers and producers of the content. It sounds like you and your wife (and your swinging friends) have come to a healthy equilibrium, and that is fantastic! However, I think that's an exception, a bright light at the end of a lot of understanding and communication and potentially fraught conversations, when the rule (for almost everyone else) is secrecy and self-fulfillment.
> If you are seriously disabled, your partner has died, you are very old, or have any sort of issue that makes it impossible to have a normal sex life or have any chance of finding a partner that is young and attractive, this is certainly ethically OK to trade money for temporary sexual activity. This is a free exchange between consenting partners.
I have lived in a country with legalized prostitution, and I agree that sex work can be an important substitute for (typically men) fulfilling needs. When I was trying to learn "erotic vocabulary" in the country's language, I would actually read the text from the "escort ad / review" sites. The ads will specifically mention "pensioners / disabled welcome!" and the reviews would be almost heartbreakingly touching, like "Svetlana made me feel vibrant and youthful, in a way I haven't felt since my wife died". I agree that these transactions are beneficial to both parties and serve an important purpose (financial, emotional, physical) in both parties' lives.
However, there is a reason that the reviewers use pseudonyms and the prostitutes typically hide or blur their face in their photos on the sites: there is a social stigma against this type of exchange for both parties. This social stigma may very well close doors for one's future prospects, and pretending otherwise does a disservice to both participants. Understanding that one may make a lot of money (for women) or be able to achieve sexual stimulation with almost no effort (for the Johns) may feel good right now, but that part of one's life may very well stain one's record for future endeavors. For example, I know that anecdotes are not data, but I have not met a man or woman who would be totally okay with it if their partner would have been involved in sex work; most would consider it a deal breaker. By choosing to engage in sex work (producing or consuming), an enormous swath of potential future partners is eliminated. I don't know what kind of public awareness campaign would be needed to change public opinion on such a massive level (i.e. to become okay with sex work), but I know that whinging about how unfair it is that people have different opinions (i.e. a stigma against sex work) does not help.
It's not a judgment on the participants in an absolute sense, but pretending that there are no negative consequences in terms of the judgment they will likely receive from other people sets people up for a harsh reality shock. It's even worse when we encourage the participants to stand against the prevailing forces of human nature (i.e. all the evolutionary biology stuff), a quixotic endeavor if there ever was one.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow
I apologize for going too far here. I'm certainly bringing my own bias to bear which is worth mentioning: some relatives of mine have had their marriages blow up because their husbands were engaging in sexual conduct outside of their relationship behind my relative' backs. The amount I care about my extended family and the effect it had/has on them (especially my (step-?) nieces and nephews) certainly biases me a lot.
Sex is great, and an important part of life. I fundamentally agree that action between two consenting parties that does not affect any third parties (e.g. my relatives / their kids in the above example) is totally fine, from drugs to porn to swingers or anything else. Even though I prefer monogamy, I don't think it's some societal downfall if people engage in activity I wouldn't participate in myself.
However, I think it's hard to deny biology, specifically brain development in children and the effects of porn and (separately) the drive to reproduce.
Brain development: I find this disconnect between people who are roughly >35 years old and those who are younger: men in the latter category grew up having access to unlimited video porn on the various "tube sites" since their preteen years, whereas in the former category these tube sites are something one likely stumbled upon as in early adulthood or later. Exposure to this type of pornography (vs. something like a VHS tape or a playboy issue) in the younger cohort, specifically for men, is very different from the older cohort's experience; whereas the older group learned about their sexuality in an environment that was not very different from that of prior generations, the younger group received (and receives) a level of stimulation through these tube sites that wires their brains differently at a formative point in their lives (roughly, the teen years). The unlimited, unfiltered exposure to every type of sexual act under the sun, without context or education, influences how the younger cohort (especially men) views sex. Consensual sex, be it swinging or porn or anything else, is not what is taught; porn tends to portray that sexual acts are about self-fulfillment, not mutual fulfillment. I say "tends to" because I must admit I don't know about the myriad categories that must exist now, but I'm guessing the category of "person A and person B do [some sexual act] and then cuddle while expressing their love for each other and discussing their future plans" is not near the top of that list.
Reproduction drive: the drive to procreate is hard-wired as one of, if not the most important aspects of all animals, and the human brain is built upon a very deep animal "core" (Thinking, Fast and Slow [0] gives a good deal of evidence about the ancient and modern brains). That proclivity, combined with the ease of access to porn, creates a problematic situation. The things you mentioned are either a) difficult to access or have legal consequences (e.g. cocaine) but have a strong influence on one's neurology or b) easy to access but are less prone to activating some primal drive inadvertently (e.g. lawn mowing, baseball cards, though I'm sure even something like baseball cards can become an addiction). Porn falls into both categories. This ease of feeling good or relieved through porn can definitely cause addiction (see all of the nofap stuff on reddit or on other forums). The desire to exchange money for instantly feeling like someone desires you, up to and including in a sexual way (i.e. through prostitution, or perhaps some very intimate only fans interaction), can certainly drive men to eagerly lust after such options if the only other option is to face up to the hard facts about one's choices or shortcomings in life (although I posit that this latter action will lead to more fulfillment).
On top of all of this, you have tech companies, who have honed their suggestion algorithms to suggest the perfect video to each viewer, exploiting these neurologic drives to increase view time in order to get more ad revenue. Just as these algorithms have thrust fringe conspiracies and fear or anger inducing videos towards people on youtube, it has thrust videos that exploit the human sexual drive towards the viewers, which in turn causes more of such videos to be produced. As I stated in the paragraph about brain development, I doubt these videos encapsulate very many, if any, of the important aspects of healthy sexual interaction (e.g. open and honest discussions about what boundaries to draw, the meaning one sees in sex).
> Society is better overall when your arbitrary restrictions on what two consenting people can do is removed, as my beliefs on what should be banned are different from yours and different from the guy down the street, so it's better to default that anything that doesn't harm me and is between two consenting people is fine for them.
I agree with you that these things (drug usage, sexual acts) should /not/ be banned. Any sort of government intervention is certainly a net loss in terms of the outcome of both the individuals involved in the activity /and/ society as a whole. There are too many people in prison in the name of the war on drugs (costing money in both the short term to house them, and in the long term when counting the contributions they could have been making, not to mention the ethical malfeasance of it), Alan Turing was chemically castrated for being gay, etc. When the government gets involved in people's choices that don't harm other people, it generally ends poorly.
However, I think it's dangerous to expect that most people, especially adolescents, will successfully navigate their discovery and understanding of their sexuality and preferences when they are exposed to hypernormal sexual stimuli that tries to hijack their sexual urges to turn their watch time into profit. I don't think that these tubes sites have anyone's sexual health in mind, both the consumers and producers of the content. It sounds like you and your wife (and your swinging friends) have come to a healthy equilibrium, and that is fantastic! However, I think that's an exception, a bright light at the end of a lot of understanding and communication and potentially fraught conversations, when the rule (for almost everyone else) is secrecy and self-fulfillment.
> If you are seriously disabled, your partner has died, you are very old, or have any sort of issue that makes it impossible to have a normal sex life or have any chance of finding a partner that is young and attractive, this is certainly ethically OK to trade money for temporary sexual activity. This is a free exchange between consenting partners.
I have lived in a country with legalized prostitution, and I agree that sex work can be an important substitute for (typically men) fulfilling needs. When I was trying to learn "erotic vocabulary" in the country's language, I would actually read the text from the "escort ad / review" sites. The ads will specifically mention "pensioners / disabled welcome!" and the reviews would be almost heartbreakingly touching, like "Svetlana made me feel vibrant and youthful, in a way I haven't felt since my wife died". I agree that these transactions are beneficial to both parties and serve an important purpose (financial, emotional, physical) in both parties' lives.
However, there is a reason that the reviewers use pseudonyms and the prostitutes typically hide or blur their face in their photos on the sites: there is a social stigma against this type of exchange for both parties. This social stigma may very well close doors for one's future prospects, and pretending otherwise does a disservice to both participants. Understanding that one may make a lot of money (for women) or be able to achieve sexual stimulation with almost no effort (for the Johns) may feel good right now, but that part of one's life may very well stain one's record for future endeavors. For example, I know that anecdotes are not data, but I have not met a man or woman who would be totally okay with it if their partner would have been involved in sex work; most would consider it a deal breaker. By choosing to engage in sex work (producing or consuming), an enormous swath of potential future partners is eliminated. I don't know what kind of public awareness campaign would be needed to change public opinion on such a massive level (i.e. to become okay with sex work), but I know that whinging about how unfair it is that people have different opinions (i.e. a stigma against sex work) does not help.
It's not a judgment on the participants in an absolute sense, but pretending that there are no negative consequences in terms of the judgment they will likely receive from other people sets people up for a harsh reality shock. It's even worse when we encourage the participants to stand against the prevailing forces of human nature (i.e. all the evolutionary biology stuff), a quixotic endeavor if there ever was one.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow
How would you feel if your underage daughter did not want to work in porn, but someone covertly recorded her having sex and uploaded it to pornhub?
Because that's what was happening: mass unconsensual sharing of images, including images of children.
Because that's what was happening: mass unconsensual sharing of images, including images of children.
Let's start at the beginning.
Teenagers are secretly recording girls on there phones having sex with them.
They use a phone and save the video.
They share clips with friends on snapchat
They send full length clips via google drive or other file sharing programs.
A friend may upload to pornhub and random people can see. Under 200 videos in 3 years were found.
You think by shutting down pornhub it stop this? Your daughter is safe? You are focusing on the least important part of the chain. If pornhub doesn't exist this is shared on xxxvideos or vk or someother service.
If you really wanted to stop the problem you have to halt the chain of events earlier.
Teenagers are secretly recording girls on there phones having sex with them.
They use a phone and save the video.
They share clips with friends on snapchat
They send full length clips via google drive or other file sharing programs.
A friend may upload to pornhub and random people can see. Under 200 videos in 3 years were found.
You think by shutting down pornhub it stop this? Your daughter is safe? You are focusing on the least important part of the chain. If pornhub doesn't exist this is shared on xxxvideos or vk or someother service.
If you really wanted to stop the problem you have to halt the chain of events earlier.
It was already happening 40 years ago with VHS cameras.
I'd say that knowing that everyone in school saw you having sex it's worse.
If the problem is "mass unconsensual sharing of images" social networks are a lot worse than any porn website.
There are tens of unauthorized pictures of people faces and properties on social networks, not counting kid pictures.
Does PornHub keeps a list of shadow profiles like FB does?
I don't think so.
If I was a parent my biggest issue would be the "not consensual" part of the story.
Because it's rape.
I'd say that knowing that everyone in school saw you having sex it's worse.
If the problem is "mass unconsensual sharing of images" social networks are a lot worse than any porn website.
There are tens of unauthorized pictures of people faces and properties on social networks, not counting kid pictures.
Does PornHub keeps a list of shadow profiles like FB does?
I don't think so.
If I was a parent my biggest issue would be the "not consensual" part of the story.
Because it's rape.
Google also indexes and returns results for websites that host not only illegal underage porn but terrorism websites, racist websites, etc. and profit from it but we give them a pass? You are making a “what about this??” argument and ignoring that they have mechanisms in place to remove illegal content which any website that allows user-generated content cannot control.
My critique is more about the wide disapproval of the porn industry itself, which you can already see in the comments of this post, which I find both absurd and harmful to the vast majority of legitimate employees of this very popular and mainstream industry.
My critique is more about the wide disapproval of the porn industry itself, which you can already see in the comments of this post, which I find both absurd and harmful to the vast majority of legitimate employees of this very popular and mainstream industry.
Pornhub was widely damaging to the “the vast majority of legitimate employees“ in the industry. It built itself by stealing their work using the paper-thin ruse of “user-uploaded” videos, pushing down wages, working conditions and establishing itself as a quasi-monopoly player who could further set terms to its advantage and against sex worker and smaller companies. This has all been quite well documented.
The conflation of puritanical objections to pornography with opposition to their regime of theft and worse is nothing other than a cynical maneuver meant to distract from the operation and consequences of their enterprise.
The conflation of puritanical objections to pornography with opposition to their regime of theft and worse is nothing other than a cynical maneuver meant to distract from the operation and consequences of their enterprise.
While I kinda feel the same like you ... I have a 3.5 year old daughter now and if she later wants to become a prostitute or work in porn, I'd support her. There are some people that really enjoy this kind of work, for example check out this interview with Lisa Ann [0] ... she really enjoyed her work in porn but was very careful to not catch diseases and it was always a worry for her.
But if my daughter would consider one of those jobs, I would make sure she would be very aware of the risks and I'm not just talking about the STDs. I'd make her aware that it could be extremely hard to find a different job, especially after a career in porn. And also, if my daughter would get children of her own, children could be bullied if they discover their mother worked in porn.
Also, it does seem a lot of actors and actresses in porn are from broken families and that is kind of sad.
---
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPT1TKFmv_o
But if my daughter would consider one of those jobs, I would make sure she would be very aware of the risks and I'm not just talking about the STDs. I'd make her aware that it could be extremely hard to find a different job, especially after a career in porn. And also, if my daughter would get children of her own, children could be bullied if they discover their mother worked in porn.
Also, it does seem a lot of actors and actresses in porn are from broken families and that is kind of sad.
---
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPT1TKFmv_o
> I have absolutely no problems with pornography and if my own daughter decided this was the industry she wanted to enter I would help jumpstart her career anyway I could just as I would any career she chose.
> My wife and I are very free spirits and the previous HN discussions on Pornhub / NYT article made me feel like I was taking crazy pills and living in 1850’s Victorian England. The pearl clutching was so intense I was very worried the pearls would break from pressure!
Maybe because almost no man of any quality whatsoever would want to raise a daughter to be a whore, used and abused in all degrading possible ways. Funny that.
There is nothing "free" or "progressive" or any 2020 buzzword that would make this argument anything other than disgusting. As if raising your daughter to be used in gangbangs and things like that is anything other than pure form of degeneracy and the absolute lowest of the low.
Some people think that just because they are capable of doing the god awful nasty things that no sane man or woman would do, that they are somehow "progressive" as if that takes some special skill or something...
What skill do women need to have in porn? Fake tits, fake lips, fake asses in some cases, fake everything.. they just get paid a lot of money because there are not enough insane people that want to do it.
Fathers talking about daughters being literal whores. Jumpstarting... What is happening with this world..
> My wife and I are very free spirits and the previous HN discussions on Pornhub / NYT article made me feel like I was taking crazy pills and living in 1850’s Victorian England. The pearl clutching was so intense I was very worried the pearls would break from pressure!
Maybe because almost no man of any quality whatsoever would want to raise a daughter to be a whore, used and abused in all degrading possible ways. Funny that.
There is nothing "free" or "progressive" or any 2020 buzzword that would make this argument anything other than disgusting. As if raising your daughter to be used in gangbangs and things like that is anything other than pure form of degeneracy and the absolute lowest of the low.
Some people think that just because they are capable of doing the god awful nasty things that no sane man or woman would do, that they are somehow "progressive" as if that takes some special skill or something...
What skill do women need to have in porn? Fake tits, fake lips, fake asses in some cases, fake everything.. they just get paid a lot of money because there are not enough insane people that want to do it.
Fathers talking about daughters being literal whores. Jumpstarting... What is happening with this world..
I was wondering the other day, why haven't we already legalized sex work? But I think the answer is that most normal people might not care for it to be legal or not, but a very motivated minority really really cares for it to be illegal.
There's probably also the cultural aspect around it. Most people still feel pretty ackward with all things related to sex. Just talking about it is taboo. Most people feel more comfortable just not bringing the topic. Even with the amount of porn being consumed, you'd be hard pressed to have anyone talk about their porn consumption to anyone else, including their sexual partner.
It's not been very long since sex can be had safely either. For most of history, sex came with lots of risks, like pregnancy and diseases. In my opinion, it'll take a few more generations for safe sex practices, safer sex work environment like digital sex work, and all that to catch up and start changing people's attitudes around it. Not sure that SV investors can do anything about that.
There's probably also the cultural aspect around it. Most people still feel pretty ackward with all things related to sex. Just talking about it is taboo. Most people feel more comfortable just not bringing the topic. Even with the amount of porn being consumed, you'd be hard pressed to have anyone talk about their porn consumption to anyone else, including their sexual partner.
It's not been very long since sex can be had safely either. For most of history, sex came with lots of risks, like pregnancy and diseases. In my opinion, it'll take a few more generations for safe sex practices, safer sex work environment like digital sex work, and all that to catch up and start changing people's attitudes around it. Not sure that SV investors can do anything about that.
> There's probably also the cultural aspect around it. Most people still feel pretty ackward with all things related to sex.
That's more of a US attitude than a European one, the UK sits somewhere in the middle, we aren't as puritan as the US would have everyone believe it is nor are we as open as say the French or the Germans.
That's more of a US attitude than a European one, the UK sits somewhere in the middle, we aren't as puritan as the US would have everyone believe it is nor are we as open as say the French or the Germans.
This article's main point left me deeply confused. Isn't mostly men behind OnlyFans? And also aren't male performers in general paid significantly less than female performers in porn? I feel like things like that were deliberately left out of the article because they didn't contribute to the narrative it tried to build.
> This article's main point left me deeply confused. Isn't mostly men behind OnlyFans? And also aren't male performers in general paid significantly less than female performers in porn? I feel like things like that were deliberately left out of the article because they didn't contribute to the narrative it tried to build.
Have to use a throwaway lest my skeletons get attached to me.
> Isn't mostly men behind OnlyFans?
Yeah. The irony to me of this wave of the 'sexual revolution' is that the message is that it's OK for Women/Men to sell their bodies as such on the internet... And the end result is a bunch of white men who were in many cases already rich are getting richer via their 'cut'. OnlyFans/Manyvids/Etc are just like the Apple or Android store. They provide some level of legally required and/or percieved need (Verification, APIs and docs, etc) and then get a cut for doing not much else.
Have to use a throwaway lest my skeletons get attached to me.
> Isn't mostly men behind OnlyFans?
Yeah. The irony to me of this wave of the 'sexual revolution' is that the message is that it's OK for Women/Men to sell their bodies as such on the internet... And the end result is a bunch of white men who were in many cases already rich are getting richer via their 'cut'. OnlyFans/Manyvids/Etc are just like the Apple or Android store. They provide some level of legally required and/or percieved need (Verification, APIs and docs, etc) and then get a cut for doing not much else.
Porn isn't going anywhere. The oldest known depiction of a human figure is pornographic [0]. Since porn will always exist, better that it be produced and consumed in the open, legally speaking. Sex workers deserve the same safety and labor protections as the rest of us.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Hohle_Fels
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Hohle_Fels
It never ceases to amaze me a nude depiction is called pornography. Anthropologically speaking it’s quite interesting. It may or may not have had a pornographic function, but the depiction itself would be described a nude.
Well for all intents and purposes, it's also true that SV treats all nudes, even partial, as porn, or at least "objectionable enough content" to disable advertising next to it.
Exactly my point, there is a conflagration. And on-line the bar is set there probably because it’s so hard to moderate otherwise.
Jesus, you've got to be kidding me. Are you going to tell me that the "Birth of Venus" is also "pornographic"? Besides, whatever porn may have existed 1000 years ago, internet porn is a completely different thing, and should not even be compared.
Why shouldn't it be compared? Is there something intrinsically different other than accessibility and quantity?
I agree with you that pornography is "not going anywhere". The utility of this media is to increase worker morale and make them more docile and less interested in "the hunt" or "playing the game" of mate discovery/signaling/courting. The mind/body during a viewing session is idled (not going anywhere) - tapping the reptile brain as a shortcut around the ancient accountability driver that is sculpting the self for mate approval & selection (sting of rejection inspires adaptation).
Imagine the need to sneeze but never feeling the release. Backlogged desire for energy exchange nearly satisfied by staring out of a one way mirror (search results, Ex Machina) into an ironic public display of intimacy.
An advanced society is romantic. Leave something to the imagination - construct metaphors to describe the act if it becomes so urgent that it must be advertised.
Sometimes I will hear explicit lyrics allowed to project into public spaces. Are we baboons or humans?
Imagine the need to sneeze but never feeling the release. Backlogged desire for energy exchange nearly satisfied by staring out of a one way mirror (search results, Ex Machina) into an ironic public display of intimacy.
An advanced society is romantic. Leave something to the imagination - construct metaphors to describe the act if it becomes so urgent that it must be advertised.
Sometimes I will hear explicit lyrics allowed to project into public spaces. Are we baboons or humans?
That is now disputed. It’s likely it was a self-portrait, it matches the posture of a woman looking down at her own reflection.
Can you please provide a reputable source?
They may be confusing it with other Venuses like the Venus of Willendorf - there has been some discussion around the possibility https://www.jstor.org/stable/2744349 - but the Venus of Hohle Fels has no head so the argument is more difficult to make for it.
I also think being a self-portrait doesn't preclude the possibility it was pornographic or the more conventional (but imo also nearly equivalent) interpretation of them as fertility fetishes, as the original reply implied.
I also think being a self-portrait doesn't preclude the possibility it was pornographic or the more conventional (but imo also nearly equivalent) interpretation of them as fertility fetishes, as the original reply implied.
Can you provide an opposing source?
I didn't make a claim or refute yours, I was asking for a source for what you believe is disputed in the academic community.
The article is not about sex workers but about virtual pimps and it is not advocating for sex workers but for the pimp's business.
Big difference.
The article is not exactly sympathetic to the "virtual pimps":
> Like many industries that rely on talent that is often young and naive, greedy middlemen (almost always men) who control production and channels of distribution take all the upside for themselves. A perfect example is porn mega-name Mia Khalifa, who was paid a grand total of $12,000 for only a handful of shoots - a tiny, tiny fraction of the value her content has generated for distributors like Pornhub.
Nonetheless this problem is not unique to porn. We don't criminalize Patreon, Medium, Spotify, PayPal, or Visa. We probably should, but if we're going to start dismantling exploitative business practices on moral grounds, why start with the most precarious workers and not the most entrenched and richest middlemen?
> Like many industries that rely on talent that is often young and naive, greedy middlemen (almost always men) who control production and channels of distribution take all the upside for themselves. A perfect example is porn mega-name Mia Khalifa, who was paid a grand total of $12,000 for only a handful of shoots - a tiny, tiny fraction of the value her content has generated for distributors like Pornhub.
Nonetheless this problem is not unique to porn. We don't criminalize Patreon, Medium, Spotify, PayPal, or Visa. We probably should, but if we're going to start dismantling exploitative business practices on moral grounds, why start with the most precarious workers and not the most entrenched and richest middlemen?
>A perfect example is porn mega-name Mia Khalifa, who was paid a grand total of $12,000 for only a handful of shoots
This specific example is used by the author to illustrate how OnlyFans is better for performers in comparison. OnlyFans performers keep 80% of their revenue and retain the copyright to their material [0]. Operating in the light of day as opposed to in a legal grey area means the copyright actually gets enforced.
[0] https://onlyfans.com/terms/intellectual-property-rights
This specific example is used by the author to illustrate how OnlyFans is better for performers in comparison. OnlyFans performers keep 80% of their revenue and retain the copyright to their material [0]. Operating in the light of day as opposed to in a legal grey area means the copyright actually gets enforced.
[0] https://onlyfans.com/terms/intellectual-property-rights
Mia Khalifa seems to be a liar:
https://www.ibtimes.com/bangbros-says-mia-khalifa-lied-about...
https://www.ibtimes.com/bangbros-says-mia-khalifa-lied-about...
New artists and performers get paid less until they have a marketable reputation. That's how the art/entertainment IP industry works, from porn to music to movies to books.
Khalifa is rich now.
All those other industries pay royalties. If you have a break-out hit even as a new artist you will get compensated a magnitude more than $12,000.
Couldn't you say this comment is virtually pimping an idea? What a culturally inflammatory term you've chosen for any service that does anything to help facilitate sex work.
They are literal pimps doing literal pimp work: recruiting young girls, connecting them with clients, and taking a cut of the profit, while keeping control of the whole business.
It is not my fault you are offended.
I would have no problem if these sex workers setup their own site and did their own business directly with their clients. No pimp would be involved then. There would be no recruiting, which is also where I see a big problem. And nobody would be taking a cut.
It is not my fault you are offended.
I would have no problem if these sex workers setup their own site and did their own business directly with their clients. No pimp would be involved then. There would be no recruiting, which is also where I see a big problem. And nobody would be taking a cut.
Lets break down your "pimping" attributes:
- Recruiting young girls: Good infantilization here, you mean young women over the age of consent that can decide for themselves what they can do with their bodies? Those women? And how are they being recruited? By demonstrating the value of their service and being an attractive alternative to McDonald's minimum wage burger flipping? Is McDonalds in the burger-work pimping business?
- Connecting them with clients: So basically any communication network is a pimping network?
- Taking a cut of the profit: They are a popular platform like any other, a place where users know to go to find sex-workers, and they are using that platform as a business. Film festivals also act as middle-men in this regard, but does anyone say film festivals are in the "film pimping" business?
- While keeping control of the whole business: I think I need a source on this, are they shutting down OnlyFan creators because they are linking to an external website? I couldn't find anything in their terms: https://onlyfans.com/terms/user-content
- Recruiting young girls: Good infantilization here, you mean young women over the age of consent that can decide for themselves what they can do with their bodies? Those women? And how are they being recruited? By demonstrating the value of their service and being an attractive alternative to McDonald's minimum wage burger flipping? Is McDonalds in the burger-work pimping business?
- Connecting them with clients: So basically any communication network is a pimping network?
- Taking a cut of the profit: They are a popular platform like any other, a place where users know to go to find sex-workers, and they are using that platform as a business. Film festivals also act as middle-men in this regard, but does anyone say film festivals are in the "film pimping" business?
- While keeping control of the whole business: I think I need a source on this, are they shutting down OnlyFan creators because they are linking to an external website? I couldn't find anything in their terms: https://onlyfans.com/terms/user-content
Yes in some ideal environment a sex worker and a pimp could have a mutually beneficial relationship. But that is not why pimping is looked down upon. And you made no honest attempt to address the issues that exist in practice.
I cannot debate against a emotionally charged smear.
I suppose that's technically true, but in the same sense you could say that YouTube pimps its content creators, Hollywood pimps its actors, record labels pimp their artists, etc. Do you honestly think every entertainer and content creator should build and run their own company? Most people don't have the skills and ambition to be entrepeneurs, and content creators need to spend their time focussing on, you know, creating content.
Personally, I would love this conversation to move more toward an issue with capitalism in and of itself, which is a much more worthy debate than talking about if the facilitation of sex work is morally justifiable.
If anyone actually has problems with "People exploiting their bodies to functionally exist in society", then please, let me introduce you to this guy called Karl Marx.
If anyone actually has problems with "People exploiting their bodies to functionally exist in society", then please, let me introduce you to this guy called Karl Marx.
> let me introduce you to this guy called Karl Marx.
Despite his feminist leanings Marx himself had a terrible attitude towards sex work and seemed completely incapable of applying his own theories to it.
I would usually direct people towards Silvia Federici's work with some introduction, but I don't believe most people in this thread are engaging in good faith and worth the time.
Despite his feminist leanings Marx himself had a terrible attitude towards sex work and seemed completely incapable of applying his own theories to it.
I would usually direct people towards Silvia Federici's work with some introduction, but I don't believe most people in this thread are engaging in good faith and worth the time.
> if these sex workers setup their own site and did their own business directly with their clients
That's exactly what they can't do. No major hosting providers allow pornographic content; none of the mainstream payment processors will handle the money; no advertisers will run their campaigns to find customers. This is specifically because of moral panic like yours driving anti-pimping regulations.
OnlyFans isn't great - none of these more-than-a-payment-processor-less-than-an-agency platforms are. But if your outrage is truly about exploitative work and not oh look someone's having sex, there are dozens of organizations you should be lining up to take down first.
That's exactly what they can't do. No major hosting providers allow pornographic content; none of the mainstream payment processors will handle the money; no advertisers will run their campaigns to find customers. This is specifically because of moral panic like yours driving anti-pimping regulations.
OnlyFans isn't great - none of these more-than-a-payment-processor-less-than-an-agency platforms are. But if your outrage is truly about exploitative work and not oh look someone's having sex, there are dozens of organizations you should be lining up to take down first.
You seem to have missed a staggeringly huge piece of the picture here:
Clients aren't paying to actually have sex with OF creators!!
I say seem to because I think you're arguing in bad faith. You've already made up your mind and continue to press on hoping you can say "pimp" enough times to draw attention away from the absence of actual prostitution.
Clients aren't paying to actually have sex with OF creators!!
I say seem to because I think you're arguing in bad faith. You've already made up your mind and continue to press on hoping you can say "pimp" enough times to draw attention away from the absence of actual prostitution.
This is a bad argument because it tries to divide sex work into "not really sex work" and "really sex work" and then move all moral objection the latter case. Sex work is work and deserves a safe environment and fair compensation whether or not it involves intercourse with clients.
> Clients aren't paying to actually have sex with OF creators!!
You may not be familiar enough with the Sex Worker industry as a whole, but this absolutely can and does happen.
Oftentimes, it is under a plan discussed in private over a secondary channel (Signal or Telegram or Wickr if they're real pros, Snapchat if they are less careful.) Most common scheme I've observed is either you finish the transaction on a side app or purchase a large amount of their video content and it is applied as a 'credit'.
No, this is not what the majority of OnlyFans creators do. But the legitimate sellers and rest of the market provide a smoke-screen for those who wish to do less accepted forms of Sex Work.
You may not be familiar enough with the Sex Worker industry as a whole, but this absolutely can and does happen.
Oftentimes, it is under a plan discussed in private over a secondary channel (Signal or Telegram or Wickr if they're real pros, Snapchat if they are less careful.) Most common scheme I've observed is either you finish the transaction on a side app or purchase a large amount of their video content and it is applied as a 'credit'.
No, this is not what the majority of OnlyFans creators do. But the legitimate sellers and rest of the market provide a smoke-screen for those who wish to do less accepted forms of Sex Work.
Comments in here just corroborate the writer's argument about SV's prudish culture, that confuses sex with morals,power, politics etc. It shouldn't be debateable in 2020 that sexual expression should be free.
Anyway, pornhub and other sites seem to be going the onlyfans direction which will only increase competition and make things better for these entertainers.
Interesting interview by one of the top earners: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlW2QdzZuZ8&
Anyway, pornhub and other sites seem to be going the onlyfans direction which will only increase competition and make things better for these entertainers.
Interesting interview by one of the top earners: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlW2QdzZuZ8&
>Comments in here just corroborate the writer's argument about SV's prudish culture
Isn't that American culture? You see that everywhere, from movies to games.
Violence and murder: ok!
Sex: OMFG EWW ARE YOU INSANE THINK OF THE CHILDREN
Isn't that American culture? You see that everywhere, from movies to games.
Violence and murder: ok!
Sex: OMFG EWW ARE YOU INSANE THINK OF THE CHILDREN
Why shouldn't it be debatable? Porn and "free sexual expression" have a lot of damage they do to individuals and society as a whole also. I don't even need to list the examples because everyone already knows them. The rise of dangerous choking accidents during sex is a direct result of the popularization of that act through pornography. BDSM and the socially acceptable connection of sexual pleasure with real physical violence is another. Like many other vices our extreme opinions about freedom allow everyone to fall victim to (gambling, alcoholism, drug abuse, etc) porn addiction and it's various consequences is also on the rise and it's not going to get better any time soon.
Many feminists still believe that pornography is the oppression and exploitation of women. And they have good reason to believe that.
Who are you to say that everyone else is a prude and you are right and they are all wrong? How come you get to dismiss the real world effects of this activity?
Many feminists still believe that pornography is the oppression and exploitation of women. And they have good reason to believe that.
Who are you to say that everyone else is a prude and you are right and they are all wrong? How come you get to dismiss the real world effects of this activity?
> The rise of dangerous choking accidents during sex is a direct result of the popularization of that act through pornography.
How much of this is an actual problem, as opposed to the handful of cases that end up getting much more coverage than any other kind of death?
How much of this is an actual problem, as opposed to the handful of cases that end up getting much more coverage than any other kind of death?
The problem is that these are American companies. And unlike the credit card companies who've been around for decades, they haven't yet had much international experience, so they're still in the American habit of enforcing their moral code as part of their product. Once they've had a decade or so to mellow out, we'll see a lot less punishment of people who don't match their moral ideals.
Why did it take this long? Why would no one else have the courage to address sex work?
OnlyFans reminds me of Zivity from 2008 which was VC-funded and founded by a woman but it didn't take off and has now been forgotten. There are probably lessons to be learned from that history but first you'd have to know that history exists.
OnlyFans reminds me of Zivity from 2008 which was VC-funded and founded by a woman but it didn't take off and has now been forgotten. There are probably lessons to be learned from that history but first you'd have to know that history exists.
There was recently an interesting interview with a content producer on OnlyFans by UnHerd, talking about the money, ethics, and how it differs from "traditional" (well, traditional in the age of PornHub) porn producers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlW2QdzZuZ8.
A more accurate title would be "10% of the internet is for porn."
The title is a nod to this famous Broadway play: https://youtu.be/zBDCq6Q8k2E
Makes more sense now. Without context it just sounds click-baity.
> Without context
The song from the musical is embedded as a video in the article.
The song from the musical is embedded as a video in the article.
I was using Firefox's reader view
Perhaps not a great idea to complain about missing context when using software specifically designed to decontextualize something.
Where am I complaining about it? Nowhere. Just said I missed it and wasnt familiar with said play.
Absolutely no reason for you to be snarky about it.
Absolutely no reason for you to be snarky about it.
Implying that it's insufficiently accurate and click-baity qualifies as a complaint.
Sure, but I wasn't implying it. It was a commentary on my personally missed context. I'm sure most of the people reading it "normally" captured the context just right.
The complaint is invalid, but that's not what reader view is intended to do either.
I think this article is a bit duplicitous about why big content platforms purged adult content. This only happened after laws like SESTA / FOSTA got passed and I don't think they really wanted to do it. The porn purge reduced revenues and made services like tumblr even worse off. Before that they didn't really give a shit about it beyond CSAM.
As far as payment companies go, the anti porn stance comes from Visa, Mastercard and Amex and their backing banks, and maybe US govt policy.
If you want porn to have a safe space in the USA, get rid of laws like SESTA / FOSTA and prevent discrimination of payment processing on the basis of sex work. It's the political and finance industry that is ultimately responsible for this.
Also I think if SV was hypothetically female dominated, the anti-sex work attitudes would actually be increased. AFAIK the groups that pushed laws like SESTA or FOSTA were definitely more female led. https://www.vox.com/2016/3/11/11203740/prostitution-legal-me...
As far as payment companies go, the anti porn stance comes from Visa, Mastercard and Amex and their backing banks, and maybe US govt policy.
If you want porn to have a safe space in the USA, get rid of laws like SESTA / FOSTA and prevent discrimination of payment processing on the basis of sex work. It's the political and finance industry that is ultimately responsible for this.
Also I think if SV was hypothetically female dominated, the anti-sex work attitudes would actually be increased. AFAIK the groups that pushed laws like SESTA or FOSTA were definitely more female led. https://www.vox.com/2016/3/11/11203740/prostitution-legal-me...
For those looking to escape porn: https://nofap.com/
I find it funny that there is a movement on every side of the political spectrum against touching yourself.
On the left? It's more of a fetish type thing (chastity) but it's one of those lifestyle long-term fetishes that someone might notice at a party.
In the middle? No nut November, which started as a joke but has a very serious reddit presence.
On the right? no fap.
None of these 3 groups have any overlap with each other - yet they all agree that touching your dick (even if only temporarily like in November) is bad.
Always thought that this was very funny
On the left? It's more of a fetish type thing (chastity) but it's one of those lifestyle long-term fetishes that someone might notice at a party.
In the middle? No nut November, which started as a joke but has a very serious reddit presence.
On the right? no fap.
None of these 3 groups have any overlap with each other - yet they all agree that touching your dick (even if only temporarily like in November) is bad.
Always thought that this was very funny
I don't think nofap is on the right, it seems apolitical to me. It's more about abstaining from porn too.
I don't think no fap is right wingers- it's just people who think they are healthier not faping. I'm not saying they are right or wrong (For all I know it could be true for them but not for you?), but it's more like a fad diet than a political thing.
Someone has seriously made a business out of nerds talking about their penises? That's amazing.
Someone made a business out of nerds talking about how they think business works, and you're in it. Pretty amazing too.
Good point
Someone made a business helping people escape their porn addiction. It's no different than helping heroin addicts by "talking about their needles." You can't just deconstruct everything.
Literally continued scrolling through the thread, and found this comment after a your other one dismissing being an OnlyFans creator as not being a real job. I don't disagree with your point here, but the cognitive dissonance is deafening.
An interesting comment/backgrounder on that meme:
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/coomer...
(The article is more interesting than the stereotypical headline suggests.)
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/coomer...
(The article is more interesting than the stereotypical headline suggests.)
I dont think its fair to say that Social media sites banning the sex industry is a move that stems from hostility. Its just our culture that we separate sex and normal life. Maybe for children, maybe for ourselves. I dont want my timeline on fb to fill up with ads for porn creators. When i do want to consume porn i know where to go.
An alternate way to address the desire to separate those aspects of life is for platforms to provide easy and clear ways to filter and segregate the content you see. For example, a platform could have a “NSFW” switch that toggles whether or not that content is shown. Not saying that would be straightforward, foolproof, or perfect - but it’s one way the problems could be solved.
But, that’s not the way most social media approaches the problem. Given that there are alternate ways to address the problem that aren’t being tried, I don’t see “hostility” as an unreasonable take.
But, that’s not the way most social media approaches the problem. Given that there are alternate ways to address the problem that aren’t being tried, I don’t see “hostility” as an unreasonable take.
i think the role of porn in the development of the internet and e commerce is woefully underestimated and unappreciated. i have been around the interwebs for a while..altho not as much as some of the other oldies...and let me tell you, if porn hadnt been the main draw to the net, there would have been none of the foundational work done for privacy, credit card processing, internet marketing, pop up ads, search engines...its super ironic that stripe and paypal et al are turning their backs to the porn industry.
the titillation aside, the porn industry is one of the oldest and the main pillars of the internet. this: https://www.plytix.com/blog/how-internet-porn-paved-the-way-...
[..]In other words, sex not only sells, it basically invented new ways of selling.
The classic example is Danni Ashe, a pornstar who calls herself a ‘geek with big breasts.” She launched a softcore porn website (epically titled “Hard Drive”) in the 1990s that quickly became the busiest site on the internet.
$8 million and 45 employees later, she had built one of the first ecommerce empires. Pornographers like Danni pioneered payment and security solutions that laid (pun intended) the foundations for Amazon, eBay, PayPal, and the broader commercialization of the world wide web.
Let’s take a deeper look at the ecommerce technologies brought to us, in part, by porn.[..]
and then step back and marvel before you kneel to the gods of porn as you read the above link.. for giving us the interwebs.
the titillation aside, the porn industry is one of the oldest and the main pillars of the internet. this: https://www.plytix.com/blog/how-internet-porn-paved-the-way-...
[..]In other words, sex not only sells, it basically invented new ways of selling.
The classic example is Danni Ashe, a pornstar who calls herself a ‘geek with big breasts.” She launched a softcore porn website (epically titled “Hard Drive”) in the 1990s that quickly became the busiest site on the internet.
$8 million and 45 employees later, she had built one of the first ecommerce empires. Pornographers like Danni pioneered payment and security solutions that laid (pun intended) the foundations for Amazon, eBay, PayPal, and the broader commercialization of the world wide web.
Let’s take a deeper look at the ecommerce technologies brought to us, in part, by porn.[..]
and then step back and marvel before you kneel to the gods of porn as you read the above link.. for giving us the interwebs.
Why don't we have sex bots yet? And VR porn.
How different can the experience be? surely, it's win-win all the way around. It would eliminate exploitation, human trafficking and clean. and of course, it would all be in the cloud. what's not to love?
How different can the experience be? surely, it's win-win all the way around. It would eliminate exploitation, human trafficking and clean. and of course, it would all be in the cloud. what's not to love?
There's a typo, I believe it means to say that the industry is $50 billion, as the video game industry does roughly $150 billion in business a year (which is crazy, as it was only $65 billion when I was in school in the 2000s).
> OnlyFans’ 20% cut of its creators’ revenues might be most usefully compared to Patreon’s 10% take-rate.
That sounds much better than the app stores with their 30% (until recently for Apple) and Twitch which takes a whopping 50% of a $5 sub.
That sounds much better than the app stores with their 30% (until recently for Apple) and Twitch which takes a whopping 50% of a $5 sub.
I think OnlyFans growth is partly COVID driven. It's Uber for online sex work. You have a lot of people who are out of work and stuck inside in some aspect and more people stuck in side to consume it. Once a COVID vaccine is widespread this year and as the knowledge that the vast majority of people won't make much from OnlyFans, its revenue rate will go down.
Technology itself does not and will never solve social problems.
[deleted]
Disappointed that this comment isn't on top. This is the origin of the "internet is for porn" meme which is in the OP title.
The tl;dr for the article for me was that the actors were getting a bigger cut of the revenue and the platform OnlyFans has more or less eliminated a slew of middlemen. I'd like to think this is a good thing for the actors and maybe reduces the chances that they are exploited by unscrupulous middle-men. Did I miss something obvious in saying that OnlyFans is improving the industry at-least a bit for people interested in consuming/producing porn?
No it isn't. The internet is for tracking users, and users mostly don't care. Porn is the antithesis of that.
[deleted]
jejejfjf(2)
This article gives me the same vibes of that comic strip set in a post apocalyptic wasteland: "But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders". It reads like a parody of SV culture. Can some woke capitalist please tell me what's so empowering about women who are forced to sell body pics for a living? Should we thank OnlyFans for exploiting the lack of safety net in our society?
"forced" - you can say that about anybody who has a job and isn't independently wealthy.
Also, the point of the article is that it's much better for the performers than traditional porn.
Also, the point of the article is that it's much better for the performers than traditional porn.
The overwhelming majority of us are "forced" to sell something for a living. Why make such a distinction between selling body pics versus manual labor?
My code's not too shabby, but I don't think anybody's bust a nut to it.
That's the puritanical aspect.
Many things are deemed to be perfectly fine, as long as no one is orgasming to it.
It's certainly a distinction.
I first heard the stament of the title about 20 years ago, it's not new.
> And Silicon Valley has almost nothing to do with it.
Wrong, it has a lot to do with it. Search engines, servers, laptops, cameras, websites, encryption, internet access,the list goes on...
Wrong, it has a lot to do with it. Search engines, servers, laptops, cameras, websites, encryption, internet access,the list goes on...
Was any of that invented in silicon valley? None of those things were even improved by silicon valley, it was mostly large pre-existing corporations or government funded research (google was founded on a public campus, for example). ISPs are also mostly subsidised by the government.
I think the claim was that Silicon Valley has almost nothing to do with funding the content creation process in this industry e.g. venture capital.
I didn't appreciate this article's tone. It seems to somehow suggest Silicon Valley entrepreneurs are evil for not having made the collective decision to launch porn startups. It takes me about five seconds to think of good reasons to not get involved in that business, that have nothing to do with being a bad person.
And, I in 5 second can give you many reasons why SV should get into porn, and make it less taboo, but more open.
It’s like with legalization of marijuana, mostly good things can come out from helping regulate this business and cutting off traffickers and other weird people who only want to do harm or get rich upon it.
On other hand SV is hugely hypocritical about this... :)
It’s like with legalization of marijuana, mostly good things can come out from helping regulate this business and cutting off traffickers and other weird people who only want to do harm or get rich upon it.
On other hand SV is hugely hypocritical about this... :)
As an asexual person, I wish this wasn’t the case, and I find it extremely triggering how hard it is to completely avoid adult content online.
It certainly has had a negative affect on my mental health.
I also find it ridiculous how services like PornHub and OnlyFans are featuring a lot of videos which clearly fetishizes borderline (okay, obvious) pedophilia, and, since its profitable, only pull it down when they might be in legal trouble for it.
It certainly has had a negative affect on my mental health.
I also find it ridiculous how services like PornHub and OnlyFans are featuring a lot of videos which clearly fetishizes borderline (okay, obvious) pedophilia, and, since its profitable, only pull it down when they might be in legal trouble for it.
The outer World is not the place where people will find what comforts them.
Imagine forcing asexuality on the vast majority of the people in the World (and in history) that are not asexual.
The remarks around pedophilia sound more like a competitor trying to push an agenda against PornHub that a concerned citizen expressing an informed opinion.
Pedophilia has been traveling on any medium the humans have invented throughout history, I guess if one wanted to fight it by shutting down the platforms delivering it, internet as a whole (and probably TCP/IP as well) would be the first one that would have to go.
Imagine forcing asexuality on the vast majority of the people in the World (and in history) that are not asexual.
The remarks around pedophilia sound more like a competitor trying to push an agenda against PornHub that a concerned citizen expressing an informed opinion.
Pedophilia has been traveling on any medium the humans have invented throughout history, I guess if one wanted to fight it by shutting down the platforms delivering it, internet as a whole (and probably TCP/IP as well) would be the first one that would have to go.
Being sex repulsed and asexual are two very different things.
I’m both asexual and write pornography. I just don’t feel sexual attraction.
My understanding of sexual attraction is limited but I’ve learned to approximate it in my writing by talking with a lot of other porn writers and using my own roughly equivalent experiences to fill the gaps.
I’m both asexual and write pornography. I just don’t feel sexual attraction.
My understanding of sexual attraction is limited but I’ve learned to approximate it in my writing by talking with a lot of other porn writers and using my own roughly equivalent experiences to fill the gaps.
Apparently the person I was replying to is both, but declared themselves as asexual, not as sex repulsed.
They might be confused.
They might be confused.
[deleted]
I am a victim of multiple instances of violent sexual assault.
Should I get off the internet now?
Should I get off the internet now?
The Hacker News guidelines regarding choosing strong interpretations apply to you regardless. “I was sexually assaulted” is an opportunity to clear up misunderstandings, not an excuse to comment in bad faith.
Asexuality and even asociality have been effectively forced upon me by my peers. I don't see any viable avenue to express my sexuality the way I had presumed I would get to as an adult.
> As an asexual person, (...) I find it extremely triggering how hard it is to completely avoid adult content online.
I would have guessed that if I were asexual, then adult content would leave me completely indifferent, wouldn't it? If I am annoyed by adult content it's precisely because it's extremely distracting; sometimes, when I have work to do, I would prefer to be asexual (at least for a few hours).
I would have guessed that if I were asexual, then adult content would leave me completely indifferent, wouldn't it? If I am annoyed by adult content it's precisely because it's extremely distracting; sometimes, when I have work to do, I would prefer to be asexual (at least for a few hours).
Asexual is a broad spectrum. All it means is you don’t feel sexual attraction. I’m both asexual and hypersexual. (Bipolar is the gift that keeps on giving.). I happily read and write furry porn as a hobby.
If you want to see how asexuality and sex can work in a relationship, my story Date Night covers that.
Disclaimer: It is furry fiction. There are no explicit sex, just discussion about it. https://www.thevoice.dog/episode/date-night-by-kayode-lycaon
If you want to see how asexuality and sex can work in a relationship, my story Date Night covers that.
Disclaimer: It is furry fiction. There are no explicit sex, just discussion about it. https://www.thevoice.dog/episode/date-night-by-kayode-lycaon
I am asexual by choice due to several instances of violent sexual assault.
> I am asexual by choice due to several instances of violent sexual assault.
I am sorry for what you had to endure. However, I think you're using the term "asexual" in a non-standard way, and I believe that has led me and others to misinterpret your original post. One cannot "choose" to be asexual, the same way as one cannot choose to be homosexual or heterosexual. One can, however, choose to be sexually abstinent or inactive. Would you agree that this is a better description of your lifestyle?
I am sorry for what you had to endure. However, I think you're using the term "asexual" in a non-standard way, and I believe that has led me and others to misinterpret your original post. One cannot "choose" to be asexual, the same way as one cannot choose to be homosexual or heterosexual. One can, however, choose to be sexually abstinent or inactive. Would you agree that this is a better description of your lifestyle?
I'm really sorry about my ignorance. Never considered that you could turn asexual after a traumatic experience. I was under the impression that it was a natural-born condition; thus my comment.
Hosts file and ad blockers and ublock and noscript and a pi-hole and a cool DNS service combined with Firefox's HoD might be good starting points.
> As an asexual person, I wish this wasn’t the case, and I find it extremely triggering how hard it is to completely avoid adult content online.
By "extremely triggering", I assume you mean "somewhat annoying"?
Why does it annoy you that "adult content" is difficult to avoid completely? Should a homosexual person be annoyed (or "triggered") that depictions of heterosexual behavior can't be avoided completely? Or vice versa? I don't think so.
By "extremely triggering", I assume you mean "somewhat annoying"?
Why does it annoy you that "adult content" is difficult to avoid completely? Should a homosexual person be annoyed (or "triggered") that depictions of heterosexual behavior can't be avoided completely? Or vice versa? I don't think so.
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
"Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
"Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
I'm sorry if I violated the site rules, but I don't see how? At the time of my post, there was no hint or indication of lostgame being a victim of sexual assault [1].
I'm familiar with the concept of "steelmanning" an argument, but I don't think we should be expected to treat an argument as stronger than a reasonable interpretation warrants, given the information available at the time (sometimes called "supermanning").
[1] And I'm truly sorry for being insensitive, albeit unknowingly and unintentionally so.
I'm sorry if I violated the site rules, but I don't see how? At the time of my post, there was no hint or indication of lostgame being a victim of sexual assault [1].
I'm familiar with the concept of "steelmanning" an argument, but I don't think we should be expected to treat an argument as stronger than a reasonable interpretation warrants, given the information available at the time (sometimes called "supermanning").
[1] And I'm truly sorry for being insensitive, albeit unknowingly and unintentionally so.
> By "extremely triggering", I assume you mean "somewhat annoying"?
That was trivializing what the other commenter said.
I take your point that the full context hadn't been clarified yet.
That was trivializing what the other commenter said.
I take your point that the full context hadn't been clarified yet.
I’m not @lostgame and I’m not ace, but I can easily imagine that a constant barrage of stuff that you’re not into could be triggering/empathise with someone saying that it troubles them.
For example, and I know this is a “me” problem rather than something objective in the world: I find BDSM quite repellent because (a) I cannot at a glance tell if the image presented is roleplay or actual assault, and (b) because I am unable to empathise with the desire to see others in pain.
((b) means I also have a problem with the existence of the Saw franchise, let alone what felt like endless and unavoidable real-world advertising for it).
In the case of porn: orgasm-noises in porn are often (I won’t claim percentages, but often) somewhat similar to mild-to-medium pain noises, so I can easily believe that’s upsetting especially for someone who has never heard the real life version.
For example, and I know this is a “me” problem rather than something objective in the world: I find BDSM quite repellent because (a) I cannot at a glance tell if the image presented is roleplay or actual assault, and (b) because I am unable to empathise with the desire to see others in pain.
((b) means I also have a problem with the existence of the Saw franchise, let alone what felt like endless and unavoidable real-world advertising for it).
In the case of porn: orgasm-noises in porn are often (I won’t claim percentages, but often) somewhat similar to mild-to-medium pain noises, so I can easily believe that’s upsetting especially for someone who has never heard the real life version.
> I find BDSM quite repellent [...] orgasm-noises in porn [...] upsetting
I'm not denying that some people feel that way, but it's extremely easy to avoid coming into contact with depictions of BDSM or pornographic orgasm noises – unless you deliberately browse adult content.
I'm not denying that some people feel that way, but it's extremely easy to avoid coming into contact with depictions of BDSM or pornographic orgasm noises – unless you deliberately browse adult content.
That style of quotation makes it seem like I personally find orgasm noises upsetting rather than that I believe others can. Was that how you understood my original comment? If so, I need to improve my style, because the latter not the former.
As for orgasm noises… they are sometimes used as joke content, even outside porn, (is this similar to the way slapstick violence is used as a joke outside horror films? I’m not sure, but feels like an interesting comparison).
As for orgasm noises… they are sometimes used as joke content, even outside porn, (is this similar to the way slapstick violence is used as a joke outside horror films? I’m not sure, but feels like an interesting comparison).
> That style of quotation makes it seem like I personally find orgasm noises upsetting rather than that I believe others can. Was that how you understood my original comment?
No, that was a failure of my editing skills. Sorry for that.
No, that was a failure of my editing skills. Sorry for that.
The fact that there is even a viable market for OnlyFans type content was such a disheartening thing to learn.
> viable market for OnlyFans type content was such a disheartening thing to learn.
why is that?
Somebody else enjoying content they paid for has nothing to do with you - it's easy to avoid and easy to not be involved.
why is that?
Somebody else enjoying content they paid for has nothing to do with you - it's easy to avoid and easy to not be involved.
Because it demonstrated just how out of reach an actual relationship with someone is for me.
>Somebody else enjoying content they paid for has nothing to do with you - it's easy to avoid and easy to not be involved.
I'd argue that platforms such as these have an effect on gender dynamics in society as a whole.
>Somebody else enjoying content they paid for has nothing to do with you - it's easy to avoid and easy to not be involved.
I'd argue that platforms such as these have an effect on gender dynamics in society as a whole.
Sites like OnlyFans have nothing to do with you or relationships in general. The vast majority of people don't go on those types of sites.
I assure you, the thing that is stopping you from being in a relationship isn't Only fans. I'd recommend trying to find ways to build up yourself confidence.
I assure you, the thing that is stopping you from being in a relationship isn't Only fans. I'd recommend trying to find ways to build up yourself confidence.
What women expect from men seems to have sharply risen in the last decade. Before getting my degree and getting in shape I was able to find partners. Nowadays people aren't even willing to be friends with me. If women's expectations in fact haven't gone up then I have no idea what the people from my past saw in me that more recent people don't.
Youth
When you climb the social ladder, there's a brief moment when yours and women's expectatitions aling, but that moment quickly passes and you enter the territory when the sides flip: women chase you, but you stay clear of any legally binding relationships. You perceive loneliness as a flaw, I perceive it as freedom, and while we're both lonely, we derive the opposite emotions from it.
Well I somehow went from having multiple exes beg me to marry them at one point all the way to not even being able to get to know a single woman in years. The complete lack of women in any aspect of my life has proven to be extremely inconvenient(even outside the context of dating)
We can sell our bodies to be destroyed in coal mines, sitting at desks, smash them up building homes, abusing them in sports, catch a Covid-19 bug...
Puritan economics seem perfectly accepting of destroying ourselves.
Willingly sell self for pleasure though? Psh
Only if the pleasure comes from that new gadget or next airfare (which is destroying the environment but so it is)
Puritan economics seem perfectly accepting of destroying ourselves.
Willingly sell self for pleasure though? Psh
Only if the pleasure comes from that new gadget or next airfare (which is destroying the environment but so it is)
> Willingly sell self for pleasure though? Psh
Having been in a sector of fintech that many sex workers used, I can say with confidence that the majority of the women within were single moms who simply couldn't or didn't have access to the social net to feed their children and aren't doing it because they want to.
It was entirely eye-opening to see how sad it is when you're talking with a young women trying to sell their bitcoin at 2am to pay for rent before they get evicted and have enough to buy baby formula and diapers.
The US is so backwards, they can show the most depraved forms of violence and cruelty imaginable and call it entertainment with out batting an eye, but showing the Human form in any sexual manner is somehow cause for alarm and deemed perverse and promoting rape culture if you believe some of the most absurd in Society.
Whereas in Europe and Asia nudity is completely accepted in many public areas, and sex work is tolerated, legal and is just another, albeit uncommon, thing people do for a living and nothing more.
As for this article, its showing how pervasive the Panopticon this form of the Internet is and underscore the idea that 'you are the product' mantra about 'free' services. We really need a different Internet already. Porn is and will always be a big component of the Internet, but much like the antics you had when you were an adolescent you soon realize their is much more value in other things and move on.
Having been in a sector of fintech that many sex workers used, I can say with confidence that the majority of the women within were single moms who simply couldn't or didn't have access to the social net to feed their children and aren't doing it because they want to.
It was entirely eye-opening to see how sad it is when you're talking with a young women trying to sell their bitcoin at 2am to pay for rent before they get evicted and have enough to buy baby formula and diapers.
The US is so backwards, they can show the most depraved forms of violence and cruelty imaginable and call it entertainment with out batting an eye, but showing the Human form in any sexual manner is somehow cause for alarm and deemed perverse and promoting rape culture if you believe some of the most absurd in Society.
Whereas in Europe and Asia nudity is completely accepted in many public areas, and sex work is tolerated, legal and is just another, albeit uncommon, thing people do for a living and nothing more.
As for this article, its showing how pervasive the Panopticon this form of the Internet is and underscore the idea that 'you are the product' mantra about 'free' services. We really need a different Internet already. Porn is and will always be a big component of the Internet, but much like the antics you had when you were an adolescent you soon realize their is much more value in other things and move on.
> Having been in a sector of fintech that many sex workers used, I can say with confidence that the majority of the women within were single moms who simply couldn't or didn't have access to the social net to feed their children and aren't doing it because they want to.
This is crazily important.
However ... it still doesn't get to the question of why anyone would consider being on OnlyFans (I'm not discussing in-person sex work) to be more problematic than having to do some other sort of low-paid, low-status, boring, dead-end, exploitative job (and remember, OnlyFans is a classic long-tail situation: for most people on it, it is low paid).
The big picture is that we live in a society which despite occasional flowery words from a senator here and there does not actually value and care for all of its members. We continuously and repeatedly place our neighbors, family, friends, colleagues in situations where in order to survive they have to take options they do not really want to take.
We could take much better care of each other. We could make the bad options much better. We could do both.
This is crazily important.
However ... it still doesn't get to the question of why anyone would consider being on OnlyFans (I'm not discussing in-person sex work) to be more problematic than having to do some other sort of low-paid, low-status, boring, dead-end, exploitative job (and remember, OnlyFans is a classic long-tail situation: for most people on it, it is low paid).
The big picture is that we live in a society which despite occasional flowery words from a senator here and there does not actually value and care for all of its members. We continuously and repeatedly place our neighbors, family, friends, colleagues in situations where in order to survive they have to take options they do not really want to take.
We could take much better care of each other. We could make the bad options much better. We could do both.
> Whereas in Europe and Asia nudity is completely accepted in many public areas, and sex work is tolerated, legal and is just another, albeit uncommon, thing people do for a living and nothing more
This is way overemphasized on the Internet by people who don't have much experience with living in Europe. It's similar to Europeans imagining that in the US it's an everyday thing that people are dying left and right because they can't pay for an emergency ambulance to take them to the hospital.
Nudity may be less stigmatized than in America, but prostitution is not something normal people as just another job that they'd be happy if their daughter chose it. On the surface, people may seem more tolerant of it, but privately they definitely act differently.
Why do we see so few Dutch and Swedish and Danish emancipated free empowered women self-actualize through porn work? Why is it always poorer Eastern European Czech, Polish, Hungarian, Ukrainian, Russian women at the top of porn star lists?
This is way overemphasized on the Internet by people who don't have much experience with living in Europe. It's similar to Europeans imagining that in the US it's an everyday thing that people are dying left and right because they can't pay for an emergency ambulance to take them to the hospital.
Nudity may be less stigmatized than in America, but prostitution is not something normal people as just another job that they'd be happy if their daughter chose it. On the surface, people may seem more tolerant of it, but privately they definitely act differently.
Why do we see so few Dutch and Swedish and Danish emancipated free empowered women self-actualize through porn work? Why is it always poorer Eastern European Czech, Polish, Hungarian, Ukrainian, Russian women at the top of porn star lists?
> Nudity may be less stigmatized than in America, but prostitution is not something normal people as just another job that they'd be happy if their daughter chose it. On the surface, people may seem more tolerant of it, but privately they definitely act differently.
When I was in my last year of apprenticeship in Switzerland I managed one the estates of the owner's homes for most of the year while they worked in Bern, which included the investment homes they had in Zurich and in Lussane. It was where generational wealthy people parked their money, guess who our neighbors were? High class Swiss escorts, I know this because I met them and asked to keep an eye on things while I was away and gave them vegetables from our farm in exchange as a good gesture of will.
I lived in S. Germany in what was once Ag land but had been urbanized for wealthy 'Green minded' Germans, where prostitution is once again legal. I got chatted up on the train a few times only to find out (by my then German-Anglo fiance) it was a meet and greet tactic they use to get them into the brothels and is apparently common to use on foreigners and university students. They were all German not one was Eastern European, which to be honest is what I'm more physically attracted to than most Western Europeans.
I can go on here about working Summers in Croatia, and Italy that included catering to nude sunbathing crowds in camp sites and resorts which are frequented mainly by other Western Europeans, but suffice it to say: I was born and raised in CA, but I've lived and worked in Europe long enough to stand by my claims and spent my Summers as a child in the coast of Spain as I'm half S. European myself. Where the local 'puti-club' is just another thing people joke about since its so common.
> Why do we see so few Dutch and Swedish and Danish emancipated free empowered women self-actualize through porn work?
First, as I outlined already and my first hand experiences: I don't think sex work is empowering at all and often has more to do with poverty and dire economic circumstances then the tired narrative of it being so that's shoved down our collective throats by this neo-femisnist narrative. Which is why you see the higher frequency of E. European women you mentioned in those situations instead of a women from wealthy Nordic country with good social nets and social mobility.
When I was in my last year of apprenticeship in Switzerland I managed one the estates of the owner's homes for most of the year while they worked in Bern, which included the investment homes they had in Zurich and in Lussane. It was where generational wealthy people parked their money, guess who our neighbors were? High class Swiss escorts, I know this because I met them and asked to keep an eye on things while I was away and gave them vegetables from our farm in exchange as a good gesture of will.
I lived in S. Germany in what was once Ag land but had been urbanized for wealthy 'Green minded' Germans, where prostitution is once again legal. I got chatted up on the train a few times only to find out (by my then German-Anglo fiance) it was a meet and greet tactic they use to get them into the brothels and is apparently common to use on foreigners and university students. They were all German not one was Eastern European, which to be honest is what I'm more physically attracted to than most Western Europeans.
I can go on here about working Summers in Croatia, and Italy that included catering to nude sunbathing crowds in camp sites and resorts which are frequented mainly by other Western Europeans, but suffice it to say: I was born and raised in CA, but I've lived and worked in Europe long enough to stand by my claims and spent my Summers as a child in the coast of Spain as I'm half S. European myself. Where the local 'puti-club' is just another thing people joke about since its so common.
> Why do we see so few Dutch and Swedish and Danish emancipated free empowered women self-actualize through porn work?
First, as I outlined already and my first hand experiences: I don't think sex work is empowering at all and often has more to do with poverty and dire economic circumstances then the tired narrative of it being so that's shoved down our collective throats by this neo-femisnist narrative. Which is why you see the higher frequency of E. European women you mentioned in those situations instead of a women from wealthy Nordic country with good social nets and social mobility.
Well, it's entirely possible that I'm underestimating how prude America is, as I haven't lived there.
In some ways it seems America is quite hyperfixated on sex, but in very specific ways with specific taboos. Like nipples are the end of the world, but selling anything from cars to hamburgers with sexy women is A-OK. Just paste a sticker on the nipples at least, then it's fine. Cheerleaders, boxing ring sign holding girls etc. etc.
In contrast, the European things you mention, like bathing and saunas and beaches are not about drooling over bodies, but just being normally without clothes, often among family. Not sexually.
I think these need to be distinguished. Sexuality isn't equal to nudity.
In some ways it seems America is quite hyperfixated on sex, but in very specific ways with specific taboos. Like nipples are the end of the world, but selling anything from cars to hamburgers with sexy women is A-OK. Just paste a sticker on the nipples at least, then it's fine. Cheerleaders, boxing ring sign holding girls etc. etc.
In contrast, the European things you mention, like bathing and saunas and beaches are not about drooling over bodies, but just being normally without clothes, often among family. Not sexually.
I think these need to be distinguished. Sexuality isn't equal to nudity.
> Well, it's entirely possible that I'm underestimating how prude America is, as I haven't lived there.
I think its incredibly distorted, the US overly sells Sex as an image to sell things and links it to everything it can.
Not least of which is porn and the Valley in SoCal as opposed to NorCal refers to the what was Ground Zero for Porn where all the old studios were based out of and was where most of the online stuff was created. Though Japan seems to have the highest production in terms of population-to-content if I recall correctly, which again coincides with bad economic situations, specifically under-employment and very low marriage/fertility rates.
Your edit was well timed, as you pretty much echo what I wrote. It's so weird... in University you're almost encouraged to do it all, but then when you get to the professional setting and you reach low level management position in an office setting you're briefed on sexual harassment so much you're almost terrified any encounter with the opposite sex will be deemed rape. It's horrible and really not that much of an issue as they want you to think it is when you really think about it as most encounters are brief and forgettable if you're busy working.
I think its incredibly distorted, the US overly sells Sex as an image to sell things and links it to everything it can.
Not least of which is porn and the Valley in SoCal as opposed to NorCal refers to the what was Ground Zero for Porn where all the old studios were based out of and was where most of the online stuff was created. Though Japan seems to have the highest production in terms of population-to-content if I recall correctly, which again coincides with bad economic situations, specifically under-employment and very low marriage/fertility rates.
Your edit was well timed, as you pretty much echo what I wrote. It's so weird... in University you're almost encouraged to do it all, but then when you get to the professional setting and you reach low level management position in an office setting you're briefed on sexual harassment so much you're almost terrified any encounter with the opposite sex will be deemed rape. It's horrible and really not that much of an issue as they want you to think it is when you really think about it as most encounters are brief and forgettable if you're busy working.
> but then when you get to the professional setting and you reach low level management position in an office setting you're briefed on sexual harassment so much you're almost terrified any encounter with the opposite sex will be deemed rape. It's horrible and really not that much of an issue as they want you to think it is when you really think about it as most encounters are brief and forgettable if you're busy working.
It's a legal thing (threats of lawsuits and the associated costs are again one of those things about America that determine many other things). It's also spreading on campuses now, which weirdly have their own tribunals outside of the normal court system and reverse the assumption of innocence in rape accusations etc. Ties into how American college encompasses students lives to a huge extent, while in Europe things are more distributed, people do sports outside of college, regularly live outside of dorms etc. There's no college police etc. Similarly, American workplaces also seem to provide more, e.g. custom healthcare plans, a bit in the direction of how Japanes companies sort of become your "benevolent" provider who will organize many aspects of your life.
Either way, I think it involves lots of layers of posturing. In the end, many people still hook up or even pair up at the workplace. I also know people who are very politically conscious and support all the MeToo etc stuff, but somehow hooked up and became partners at an academic conference. You just have to do it the right way (risky, but not too hard for the socially skilled who know when and how to do it). It's still very much possible. People don't act the way they talk.
It's a legal thing (threats of lawsuits and the associated costs are again one of those things about America that determine many other things). It's also spreading on campuses now, which weirdly have their own tribunals outside of the normal court system and reverse the assumption of innocence in rape accusations etc. Ties into how American college encompasses students lives to a huge extent, while in Europe things are more distributed, people do sports outside of college, regularly live outside of dorms etc. There's no college police etc. Similarly, American workplaces also seem to provide more, e.g. custom healthcare plans, a bit in the direction of how Japanes companies sort of become your "benevolent" provider who will organize many aspects of your life.
Either way, I think it involves lots of layers of posturing. In the end, many people still hook up or even pair up at the workplace. I also know people who are very politically conscious and support all the MeToo etc stuff, but somehow hooked up and became partners at an academic conference. You just have to do it the right way (risky, but not too hard for the socially skilled who know when and how to do it). It's still very much possible. People don't act the way they talk.
> Why is it always poorer Eastern European Polish
seriously?
I didn't even know that there are (popular) porn stars from my country, yet alone on the top of lists
seriously?
I didn't even know that there are (popular) porn stars from my country, yet alone on the top of lists
My bad. I guess it's more Czechia and Hungary specifically. Due to various business reasons and historic opportunities of the unregulated market and chaos after the change of system in 1990 and the generally atheistic society, poverty and conventionally attractive women (and white, which was important for the rich first world market). Poland was/is perhaps too religious for this.
>Having been in a sector of fintech that many sex workers used, I can say with confidence that the majority of the women within were single moms who simply couldn't or didn't have access to the social net to feed their children and aren't doing it because they want to.
Sounds like the majority of jobs. Although I agree that the lack of social services in the US has reached ridiculous levels.
Sounds like the majority of jobs. Although I agree that the lack of social services in the US has reached ridiculous levels.
People are hardly working for Google because they want to.
People are hardly working in slaughter houses and coal mines because they want to.
Feminists I know are selling themselves because they like sex, and controlling their bodies time economy is their choice.
One would think on this forum that it’s a gradient of statistics and not black and white anecdotes would be more obvious.
Exploitation of minors is one thing. Though, I do not see many folks lifting a finger over child political prisoners in rancid cages. So I’m left wondering if exploitation is the real issue or the sex part given cultural norms.
People are hardly working in slaughter houses and coal mines because they want to.
Feminists I know are selling themselves because they like sex, and controlling their bodies time economy is their choice.
One would think on this forum that it’s a gradient of statistics and not black and white anecdotes would be more obvious.
Exploitation of minors is one thing. Though, I do not see many folks lifting a finger over child political prisoners in rancid cages. So I’m left wondering if exploitation is the real issue or the sex part given cultural norms.
> Feminists I know are selling themselves because they like sex,
Sex work is the only job where you believe the advertising. "I'm selling a little bit of sex because I have such a high sex drive" or "I love sex and I need to fund my way through college" -- they need to say this because most of their punters do not want to buy sex from people who are poor and desperate for money.
Sex work is the only job where you believe the advertising. "I'm selling a little bit of sex because I have such a high sex drive" or "I love sex and I need to fund my way through college" -- they need to say this because most of their punters do not want to buy sex from people who are poor and desperate for money.
Well, this was it.
I hope you all enjoyed tearing me to shreds - I’m sorry that my sexual assault isn’t a good enough excuse for my sexuality and I’m sorry my triggers inconvenience you.
No; for real - I’ve been here ten years and just sent an email to close my account.
I don’t know what the hell is wrong with you people, but this is maybe the tenth incident of singling out and shitty behaviour to me this year alone on this forum, whether it’s for being transgender, gay, asexual, or now, for even daring to open up about sexual assault.
I’ve had it. There are communities where decency can prevail.
I hope you all enjoyed tearing me to shreds - I’m sorry that my sexual assault isn’t a good enough excuse for my sexuality and I’m sorry my triggers inconvenience you.
No; for real - I’ve been here ten years and just sent an email to close my account.
I don’t know what the hell is wrong with you people, but this is maybe the tenth incident of singling out and shitty behaviour to me this year alone on this forum, whether it’s for being transgender, gay, asexual, or now, for even daring to open up about sexual assault.
I’ve had it. There are communities where decency can prevail.
Wow - I am amazed at the number of people commenting who might not realize I am a multiple time even recent victim of violent sexual assault - and no, it’s not just ‘mildly annoying’, it can send me into tears.
I’ve never seen such a lack of understanding or felt so personally attacked on HN before, as if you guys think I’m a pussy or something because you couldn’t imagine a case in which maybe, yes; it actually negatively affects my mental health.
To be honest - your stupid comments have affected my mental health, too; and I’m sorry for sharing. Ruined my morning for sure.
This is the most insensitive bullshit I have ever seen on HN and after ten years I might actually leave if this kind of insensitive hurtful bullshit continues. It’s not the first time I’ve been singled out for my orientation or sexuality here.
I have felt like HN was an LGTQBA+ friendly space for the decade I’ve been here but in the last year or two some of you have really chosen to show your true colours.
Fuck y’all’s insensitivity. I need a drink.
I’ve never seen such a lack of understanding or felt so personally attacked on HN before, as if you guys think I’m a pussy or something because you couldn’t imagine a case in which maybe, yes; it actually negatively affects my mental health.
To be honest - your stupid comments have affected my mental health, too; and I’m sorry for sharing. Ruined my morning for sure.
This is the most insensitive bullshit I have ever seen on HN and after ten years I might actually leave if this kind of insensitive hurtful bullshit continues. It’s not the first time I’ve been singled out for my orientation or sexuality here.
I have felt like HN was an LGTQBA+ friendly space for the decade I’ve been here but in the last year or two some of you have really chosen to show your true colours.
Fuck y’all’s insensitivity. I need a drink.
"Fuck y’all’s insensitivity" - amazing summary, really. I've seen this attitude a lot, but these 4 words is the best summary I've seen. You basically said that unless we tip toe around your sensitivity and morning mood, we all can go to hell. That's like going to a nightclub and demanding to put the volume down and to change music to something less tasteless, maybe Mozart or Bach, because otherwise you'd feel unwelcome in the club.
Nice, found a bunch of vids of featured "performer" Aella getting boffed on Spankbang. Surely "unashamed casual porn consumer" OP would have no problem if his sister were also a "performer" on Onlyfans.
Looks like the porn industry is bankrolling a PR campaign to legitimize their business.
It is particularly amusing to see them pretend they are feminists when in truth practically all feminists hate porn.
And I also find amusing the implication that onlyfans is a win for sex workers. Yeah, maybe for the typical porn star it is a better deal, but on the other hand they are also corrupting a lot of young girls that would otherwise have never gone into porn.
And I also find amusing the implication that onlyfans is a win for sex workers. Yeah, maybe for the typical porn star it is a better deal, but on the other hand they are also corrupting a lot of young girls that would otherwise have never gone into porn.
There was absolutely no need to include the stupid fake feminist take. Plenty of women and plenty of feminists also oppose porn.
The problem with onlyfans and chaturbate and others is that there are a lot of serious criminal activities that the creators might be engaged in. Anything from the creator stating they are over age when they are a minor, to full blown sex slavery where girls are held and forced to perform against their will. So it is understandable that people are wary of getting into that mess.
The same fake feminist spewing bullshit about men keeping sex workers down, will very quickly accuse the same men of profiting from sex slavery or child porn if they had invested in these platforms.
The problem with onlyfans and chaturbate and others is that there are a lot of serious criminal activities that the creators might be engaged in. Anything from the creator stating they are over age when they are a minor, to full blown sex slavery where girls are held and forced to perform against their will. So it is understandable that people are wary of getting into that mess.
The same fake feminist spewing bullshit about men keeping sex workers down, will very quickly accuse the same men of profiting from sex slavery or child porn if they had invested in these platforms.
Indeed, this notion of "men are anti-porn" seems very antithetical to my lived experience.
"Men" as such are never anti- or pro- anything.
There's endless lines of division among "men". Some men want to keep the "flow" of sex under control and don't like when sex is "handed out" too easily to men they don't see as worthy.
Some other men like the deal if they operate the business like a pimp or porn producer.
Consumer men may like it because they feel they can't satisfy their urges in other ways or they don't feel like the "real deal" is worth the effort and risk in comparison to these substitutes.
There are also men who just cheer on the empowered self-actualizing women to do what they desire to express their sexuality freely.
"Men" includes Rocco Siffredi, your local pastor, the loser nerdy virgin, the strict traditional father figure, a Christian wait-until-marriage boy, the nofap evangelist, etc. etc.
There's endless lines of division among "men". Some men want to keep the "flow" of sex under control and don't like when sex is "handed out" too easily to men they don't see as worthy.
Some other men like the deal if they operate the business like a pimp or porn producer.
Consumer men may like it because they feel they can't satisfy their urges in other ways or they don't feel like the "real deal" is worth the effort and risk in comparison to these substitutes.
There are also men who just cheer on the empowered self-actualizing women to do what they desire to express their sexuality freely.
"Men" includes Rocco Siffredi, your local pastor, the loser nerdy virgin, the strict traditional father figure, a Christian wait-until-marriage boy, the nofap evangelist, etc. etc.
Right, I just have a disagreement with the notion the article peddles that women are somehow better, that this is a "man issue."
It's such a primitive and toxic line of thinking. The real explanation is that SV doesn't care about the plight of porn actresses not because they're women, but because people in general mostly care about themselves and their closest ones only. Just see that the SV also doesn't care about the plight of rare earth miners (which SV needs for their electronics), even though they're mostly men. I.e. the gender is not a factor here, and yet article authors try very hard to make it look like it is.