Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

emma wrote

I'm extremely familiar with the subject matter. I hope you know that your position isn't far removed from the misogynistic idea that women who have sex too much become irreparably damaged.

6

bloodrose wrote

I'm extremely familiar with the subject matter.

Off the topic of Browse, can I ask you a question about it since you are familiar with it?

One of the arguments I have seen in the anti-porn movement is that when we discuss sex-workers, we are prioritizing the voice of the volunteer over the voice of the conscript. So, we are prioritizing the rights of the person who uploads their own video over the rights of the person who has their abuse or their private videos uploaded without their consent. I think the assumption is that there are fewer volunteers than there are conscripts and thus the "prioritization" of said voice is unfair. Do you know of any data/info that would counter that argument?

2

TheLegendaryBirdMonster wrote

The argument is kinda flawed because porn of people without their consent is already illegal and nobody supports it.

Data would be interesting thought

5

bloodrose wrote

The argument is kinda flawed because porn of people without their consent is already illegal and nobody supports it.

Agreed. It would've been nice if someone had a "hey, analytics have been done on uploaders of content and found that x% are self-uploaders" to counter the suspicion that the illegal content is being ignored to support the legal content.

6

GlangSnorrisson wrote (edited )

More than that, the suspicion that people would ignore the illegal content to support the legal content is really poorly founded.

It sounds like someone projecting their absolutist views onto others.

3

GlangSnorrisson wrote (edited )

Yeah it’s a bit like being anti-sex because some people are raped.

Being anti-abuse/non-consensual porn doesn’t have to throw voluntary porn makers under the bus.

To me it sounds like some mental gymnastics to justify an overly broad attitude towards porn.

It also reeks of authoritarian and shitty methods such as criminalization of various things etc.

5

emma wrote

I haven't seen any data on this, and honestly I doubt it exists.

4

bloodrose wrote

I would've guessed that as well. Thanks for taking the question seriously. :)

4

BrowseDuringClass1917 wrote

Interesting, I didn’t know this discussion was about women.

−4

emma wrote

If it wasn't, you and your kin wouldn't have turned it into an issue for your twisted brand of feminism to address. You know as well as I that women and femmes are overrepresented in sex work by a long shot.

7

BrowseDuringClass1917 wrote

My kin? I was not even talking about the issue from a feminist perspective of any kind, and I made sure to only refer to sex-workers as gender neutral because it is, in fact, a gender neutral profession.

Interesting though that you lump ‘femmes’ into the woman category, implicitly denying their nonbinary identities.

−5

emma wrote

I'm not going to play games with you further. Suffice to say, you're calling yourself a radfem for a reason, and if anyone takes issue with my "lumping in" of two distinct categories of people, they can draw a venn diagram for themselves and find out why that isn't the case.

4

BrowseDuringClass1917 wrote

My bio is very obviously a joke. It has plenty of contradictions and even lists a fiction author for no reason.

−1

emma wrote

There's nothing obviously contradictory about your bio.

4

BrowseDuringClass1917 wrote (edited )

ML

Neoreactionary ecology

radfem

fanged Noumena

Julius Evola

James Joyce

Practically everything on the list contradicts one or more other things on the list, except James Joyce who is just an author. I thought the joke would be obvious.

−2