Submitted by bloodrose in meta

Don't get me wrong, I don't care for Browse's politics and watching their slow slide into authoritarianism/brocalism over the years sucks, but are we really banning people who find porn misogynistic?

Literally two days ago, a user was posting the observation about relationships being transactional and the damage that is causing to their emotions. Yet, when we discuss transactionalizing, monetizing and turning into media sex ,all of a sudden it's ban-worthy?

Browse said they were anti-sex-work but pro-sex-worker. Yes, it was clumsy and poorly done. Would you all say that the stock market should still exist because I'm an accountant that deals with something that affects stocks? Just because you support me being an accountant? No, no you wouldn't. Their coal analogy was actually quite good.

If we're banning users over this, ban me now. I personally think porn is exploitative and cruel. I don't believe anyone should suffer for having been a victim of it, and as emma pointed out, the victims are usually non-men who are routinely victimized by patriarchy. I would hold every single sex-worker and porn actress in higher esteem than any man but I still think the porn industry is exploitative and cruel.

Do I have the answer to fixing the exploitative and cruel industry? Clearly not. If I did, I'd have already been asking you all to support whatever project/solution I had. Would I cry "ban it"? Well, clearly no because of my answer to the first question. How do I deal with my dislike of the industry? I do not consume the product it sells and I do not have sex with people who do. This is probably the most "anarchist" solution I have to the issue.

And before you shout "moralizer!" at me, find one other capitalist exploitation you would hold up with that argument. I am very pro-sex and would fuck in the open if it weren't illegal and the mood struck me. I'm anti-capital, anti-work, anti-exploitation. I'm anti-porn as it exists today. I'm not saying there is no way to have sexy images but I can't tell you what system/future could handle this in a non-exploitative way because I'm just not that smart/creative.

So, if this view is bannable, ban me.

15

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Hibiscus_Syrup wrote (edited )

we really banning people who find porn misogynistic?

No. It was for the things I said in my explanation of the ban, which are different.

So, if this view is bannable, ban me.

It isn't.

Have you read the stickied article in f/Sex_Work and the sidebar article? Might be useful for some people here.

Sorry I don't have more time for this right now, if someone else has more time to explain this they are welcome.

3

bloodrose OP wrote

I did read your comment and it broke down into these areas:

  1. Swerfy stuff - but I honestly didn't see anti sex-worker sentiment. I saw that Browse should've engaged better than they did but not someone who was anti worker.

  2. Tank adjacency If we're banning them for going pro-China tankie, I retract my indignation. I'm kinda sick of "China is doing it right" comments, too. They send my yikes-meter off. But what it felt like, because we haven't outright banned some other pro-China folks, is that Browse's take on sex work was the bannable offense. Maybe that is a lack of consistency on our part and we're only human...but that is how I our humanness led me to read the ban.

  3. Class-reductionism I missed that one. But they've done it in the past so I believe it.

I guess since we inconsistently ban for #2 and I didn't see #3, I assumed the real ban was over #1. If it was more complex than that, should we lock this thread? Or leave it open to discuss defining swerfy for future reference?

3

tabby wrote (edited )

I thought the view in the original thread that Pornhub's move was bad because it makes things harder for sex workers was weak. The benefits of removing revenge porn, child porn, porn filmed and posted without the consent of all parties, and pirated porn overwhelmingly outweigh any hardships it creates for sex workers. Granted it's not a perfect solution. It maybe isn't even a good solution. It's not going to stop CP and revenge porn, and it probably will shift the problem elsewhere. I'll also grant that the people behind the anti-Pornhub have ulterior motives. Even so, making it harder to distribute child porn and revenge porn is unconditionally a good thing. This was poorly thought out. Please don't read it. I promise it's not worth reading. I'm only not deleting it because I imagine people don't like vanishing comments.

Edit: realized after /u/emma's comment that this was a tangent. My bad. I wrote this when it was late and I should've been asleep. *facepalm*

4

Hibiscus_Syrup wrote

A few things it might be useful for people to know generally.

If I'm banning a user who has been around for a while, I'm usually doing it only because I know that ziq has to do it a lot and then they have to deal with the frustrating mess, like this post, that follows. I try to give them a break when I do.
Unfortunately I'm limited in capacity to explain all of my decisions. But some other relevant ones are:

If a person has been around for a long time, I consider their failures to be shared. So if Browse had said what he said with a new account, it would have got a swifter permanent ban. This is the main reason I went for 30 days.

When someone brings something to ToSBreaches, I don't just consider the highlighted posts if I have energy, I think about the person's general participation and how people relate to them here. Browse is clearly one of those people on the margins of the site who regularly skirt and sometimes break the ToS. So when somebody raises that as a concern, that usually seems the appropriate time to do something about it.

8

bloodrose OP wrote

This is a fair assessment of Browse. I nearly shot myself in the head for siding with them on this one. I have previously banned them from /f/feminism for class reductionist crap. I appreciate you taking the time to respond because the tone of the comment felt very different than your response to the meta post. I appreciate that dealing with disagreements on site maintenance sucks so thanks for being open to my thoughts on it. <3

6

Hibiscus_Syrup wrote

I wasn't open to your or anybody else's thoughts on it, especially in this format, which is why I locked the ToSBreaches post and said that people could speak to me directly if there was more to say.
I assume most users don't know how much of an energy suck this is.

My sense is that you came at this from some kind of bad place rather than one assuming good faith on my part, and it would help me it if you adjusted that in future.

0

emma wrote

The fear is that going after Pornhub will be the beginning of going after other sites that have absolutely none of the problems you just listed. Few sex workers actually give a shit about Pornhub itself, it's the implications of the decision that worry them.

(If you want to discuss this further, maybe open a new thread, since this is really off-topic.)

7

black_fox wrote

re: Browse — it’s hard to not hear “ban porn” as authoritarian repressed weirdo shit

11

ziq wrote (edited )

What makes you think she was being malicious in any way? She was clearly genuinely concerned that being critical of that industry was now considered grounds for a ban. I think it's a perfectly valid concern and when you explained the ban was for other reasons, she was super understanding and even apologetic (when she really had no need to be).

I'm very confused by what reads to me as a hostile attack on a valued user who did nothing more than ask an honest question as a feminist. Most rad women understand how the objectification of women's bodies feeds the culture of misogyny every woman is forced to endure. They understand that workers are exploited by their industry. This isn't swerf ideology, it's simply being a woman in a culture that treats women like disposable objects who only exist to serve as instant gratification for men.

Women can't just be expected to ignore the effect of the porn industry on their lives because some women make their living from porn. We all make a living from various industries and shouldn't be attacked for talking about the harm those industries do. This particular industry isn't some sacred entity that's above criticism, especially when the conversation is centred around a specific giant company that has made hundreds of millons off of thousands of hours of rape, pedophilia, voyeurism and involuntary revenge porn.

She clearly supports sex workers and their struggles, she hasn't blamed workers for their employers actions, so I think you should apologise for tarnishing her and implying she's somehow acting maliciously for caring enough about raddle to ask tough questions when she fears the policy on being able to talk critically about a multi billion euro industry is being shifted without discourse.

7

Kinshavo wrote

I don't to add more to this situation, but maybe the feeling of being scrutinized is what lead to Tequila reaponse (in no way I am trying to spoke on behalf of Tequila). And sure as sometimes occurs with /u/emma efforts with the coding, the userbase not always gives the admin team the proper recognition and/or understanding. Admin job is no easy, and more with our framework and dealing with ToS breaches. Maybe we can shift this workload to the mods somehow, not sure If I am making sense right now.

Maybe I am naive and at risk of being misunderstood, I can only add that I am genuinely concerned about two our most contributing user fighting over this issue.

3

Vulgar_Soda wrote

My sense is that you came at this from some kind of bad place rather than one assuming good faith on my part, and it would help me it if you adjusted that in future.

A mod attacking a user for asking questions is giving me bad vibes.

5

lastfutures wrote (edited )

I didn't want browse banned. Not because they aren't on some SWERF bullshit, but because I don't mind engaging with some of that occasionally.

Your position is - I can only hope - quite different from theirs. I'm sympathetic to some anti-porn arguments (but find most reactionary), particularly from an anti-civ perspective. However, when you ignore the entire existing reality of capitalism, criminalization of the sex industry, and the state, and support policy & reactionaries who target sex workers, you can go fuck yourself. Browse said they support the criminalization of sex work in China (where you can be sentenced to life imprisonment for producing porn) & think the US should do the same. They are supportive of the effort of SWERFs, there is no other way to read that. They use the same language, the same arguments, and support the same reactionary policies.

10

celebratedrecluse wrote

This is now entirely a tangent and surely controversial but after reflecting and taking some time away from the screen recently, I am beginning to think the impulse to ban people rather than deconstruct their arguments, leads to the festering of ideological rot more often than not.

10

celebratedrecluse wrote

deconstructing people's arguments only works when they are open to changing their mind.

Well, I don't think the goal is to change the perspective of someone who says something. That rarely works online. The goal, which every astroturf agency knows, is to influence the perceptions and attitudes of those absorbing the content; which is order of magnitude more than some random individual poster.

I personally would love it if raddle allowed people a vehemently disagree to have a genuine discussion with me on why I don't like them.

perhaps we can make a forum specifically for this?

7

celebratedrecluse wrote

Thank you for sharing your perspective, I think it is very reasonable. I also think that you are right to say banning people for simply criticizing an industry or its products is not the right approach, even if it is a nuanced issue with respect to labor and gender.

7

rot wrote

woah wait, that didn't deserve a ban. mods undo pls

3

KillYourCiv wrote (edited )

If I get banned because of this, I shouldn't have come here in the first place:

I can't understand why people are so defensive of porn. Sure, I understand if you want to support people who are getting exploited by the industry. I do too. I have nothing but sympathy for sex workers. They are doing work that can be traumatizing and dangerous.

But here we get to my point; if sex workers face so many dangers in their job, doesn't that mean that there is something very wrong with work itself? I feel the same way about any exploitative industry; if some work harms people it shouldn't be supported. Porn is not inherently good. It isn't about sexual freedom of sex positivity (in fact quite opposite since large parts of porn is based on people having taboos about sex). Most of it isn't even nice to watch. Porn exists mostly because of needs of often troubled heterosexual men. Porn is deeply misogynist and sexist. You can't deny that.

So if porn is dangerous and harmful to sexworkers and sexist, why should we defend it? I don't understand that. Just because it brings pleasure to mostly male audience? Or is it some libertarian, freedom of speech type of thing?

I'm belong to a generation that has seen hardcore pornography since very early age. It has affected my ideas of what human sexuality is and should be like. I have also struggled with sexual addiction and porn gave me some very unhealthy views regarding sexuality. Without porn, my life would've been better. But this is not just about me. Many people suffer because of excessive use of porn. Do we just forget them or tell them to get help? That sounds like the very unhealthy views that society has towards people addicted to drugs and alcohol.

I don't just see any reason to be pro-porn. I want that we could live in a world in which porn isn't one of the most popular (and profiting) form of entertainment. I don't like the fact that there exists an industry such as porn industry. I can't just ignore all the abuse that happens in it. And I don't believe that the industry can be saved because the abuse has always been part of it. There is no "pure" and wholesome porn. Porn industry isn't about celebrating healthy and free human sexuality.

It could even be argued that porn itself is violence. Sexual intercourse with someone who you don't desire is violence. So why then it would be somehow different if somebody is filming it? Doesn't that only make it worse? And earning money doesn't change that.

−3

emma wrote (edited )

You or anyone else's personal unhealthy relationship with consuming porn shouldn't hold any weight in conversations about the struggles that people who produce it face. That relationship is your personal failing and your own experience, not anyone else's.

Sexual intercourse with someone who you don't desire is violence.

No. Sex without consent is violence. You came here the other day complaining that being anti-porn gets you lumped together with religious puritans. Have you considered that this is because you sound like one?

8

lastfutures wrote (edited )

This is very clearly a you problem. Like, I could argue specific points here, but it's clear those are irrelevant and you just have your own issues with porn & sexuality.

edit: To be clear, I'm not legitimizing your drug addiction analogy either, that's not what I mean by problem.

6

isvarahparamahkrsnah wrote

Eh
I'm not into porn so don't really care either way.
But I do think that everyone's views should be heard. After all, that's the foundation of free speech.
Let everyone voice their opinions. And if their opinions are a load of crap, the downvotes and critics will put 'em in their place.

2

KillYourCiv wrote (edited )

How do I sound like religious puritan? My main and only motivation here is being against violence and exploitation.

And I don't understand how someone can have consensual sex with someone who they don't want to have sex with? How that is even possible? Being involved in porn is mostly self-harm. And many former porn actors and actresses have told about their horrific experiences in the industry and how it wounded them permanently. But sure, you can just say that they are religious nutjobs and their experiences don't matter at all.

Almost all pro-porn arguments are cherry-picking and ignoring of real problems. They also tend to ignore the victims of porn industry. Porn advocates just brush away every uncomfortable fact and say they are lies of religious puritans.

But sorry if I said something that made you feel bad. Sorry to bother you with inconvenient facts.

−3

emma wrote (edited )

"Someone you don't desire" can be applied to both rapists and people you had one-night stands with... go figure.

Edit: lmao your edit just screams red flags. I see the exact same "just concerned" and "just facts" shit with TERFs.

6

KillYourCiv wrote (edited )

Yes and self-harm is a real problem for many people. Not every form of sexual activity is safe or healthy. Just because something looks like fun doesn't mean it is. You can do things that you regret and that are bad for you.

Oh am I also a TERF now? You can check some time what I wrote about representation of transpeople in porn. And I'm also non-binary myself so there is that. But go ahead and just call me whatever you want to. That only shows the lack of any real arguments.

−3

emma wrote

Oh am I also a TERF now? You can check some time what I wrote about representation of transpeople in porn. And I'm also non-binary myself so there is that. But go ahead and just call me whatever you want to.

It's so funny to me when people get mad about things I'm supposed to have written, but didn't.

That only shows the lack of any real arguments.

Your entire damn argument is that you can't keep your hands away from your crotch, therefore this warrants abolishing the porn industry, with no discussion on how this might affect performers economically, and no acknowledgement that sending performers into unemployment or low-wage jobs is violence in of itself.

6

ziq wrote

it's suspicious that you made an account just to talk about this one topic, and the whole "inconvenient facts" line is a big red flag.

your opinions aren't facts

4

KillYourCiv wrote (edited )

So now you are trying to attack me by insulting. Sorry, you won't the get reaction you want. This only tells about your complete lack of empathy towards others. Have fun living as sociopath!

EDIT: You people are always the same. It's more important for you to gain respect among like-minded than actually wanting to make world a better place. It's all about popularity and narcissistic desires. Good to know!

−2

emma wrote

So now you are trying to attack me by insulting

So far the only intelligent statement you've made.

narcissistic

Please. You came into a thread about site policy and went on an unsolicited rant about your masturbation guilt.

5

KillYourCiv wrote

All I'm trying to say is that porn industry is so full of shit that it can't be redeemed. But if that is not accepted we can't really help the victims of actual violence. If people just close their eyes and pretend that there is nothing bad in porn, the situation of sex workers won't be any better. I hate how sexist men at the top of porn industry are able to make a profit from the abuse and exploitation of sex workers.

And I'm not advocating here for some legal prohibition of porn. That wouldn't help. People should instead quit porn. Quit watching and making it. That isn't easy but in the end it is worth it. And the same should happen in every other abusive and exploitative industry.

−1

KillYourCiv wrote (edited )

Your attack are almost funny. You don't even try to make arguments anymore. Your mask of sanity is totally off.

−3

ziq wrote (edited )

i don't understand why you feel the need to do your nofap shtick in f/meta, it's not an appropriate venue for it and i'm not sure there is an appropriate venue since you're trying to tell people here (which includes several sex workers btw) that they're bad for participating in that industry

5

KillYourCiv wrote

The workers aren't bad and I have never said that they are. The existence of industry and the billionaires making the most money out of it are.

If this would be a conversation about some other business, probably we all would agree. But since it's porn, it is somehow different. Why? Why is abuse in porn industry somehow less bad?

−1

KillYourCiv wrote

And what gives you the right to insult other people? Do you think you are somehow better than others? Sorry, but you aren't. From what I know, you are just some anonymous person insulting me. That is nothing to me.

−3

lastfutures wrote

Yes, it's irrelevant when talking to you, because it's clear you have personal issues with it that make the facts or rational discussion not matter when it comes to this topic. Trying to talk about the facts of the porn industry with someone so wrapped up in their own neuroses, sexual repression, anti-queerness, and so on, is impossible.

5

KillYourCiv wrote (edited )

Anti-queer? WTF? If something, majority of porn is anti-queer. The representations of transpeople in it are simply horrible and transphobic. And I wouldn't call average lesbian or gay porn especially queer friendly or unproblematic. So-called queer porn is mostly made for male gaze and for straight pervs who have some disgusting fetish towards lesbians and transwomen.

I can take almost any insult that has been thrown here against me without any reason, but saying that I am anti-queer is crossing a line. You made me hate you. Are you happy now? Fuck you and everybody else here. This place is shit and full people defending sexism and abuse of women.

−1

lastfutures wrote (edited )

As far as I can tell you're like one step away from calling gay men degenerates for having anonymous sex and saying the only healthy sex is between a husband and wife (or husband & husband). You're on some hetero Christian sexuality shit, it's anti-queer. Saying queer porn - which is often made by and enjoyed by queer people - is "horrible" and a "disgusting fetish", is anti-queer. You are disgusted by queer sexuality.

5

emma wrote

good job making this entire thread about your personal redemption story or whatever

This place is shit and full people defending sexism and abuse of women.

There's only one of you, like you've admitted to being a serial wanker and stated in no uncertain terms that the desire to watch porn is the desire to see women abused. Here's hoping you get vga cables for christmas since you wanna keep projecting so hard. What you haven't done is take any responsibility for you seeking out this material on your own accord, and instead suggested porn performers could just leave the industry to make the problem (your problem) go away, never acknowledging what harm walking away from their income--possibly the only one that would gain them any upward social mobility--would cause.

5

Hibiscus_Syrup wrote (edited )

Unfortunately ziq you've read it completely different to me. I'll try to explain and I hope you'll start to see what I'm talking about.

Between the initial straw man, reducing everything I said to "We're banning people who are anti-porn now?" - which, also, is obviously not a neutral question but an accusatory one. (I am genuinely confused about why you don't see that and keep framing this as some kind of simple engagement with me. It is the beginning and the frame of her whole engagement with me in the post)

imo ToS Breaches posts are built for admins to be able to make their best call and then lock the post so we don't have to deal with more bullshit from people. Admins shouldn't be expected to be perfect they just should be expected to be doing their best in good faith. You know this stuff so I don't get it.

bloodrose was in such a rush to make her post that she seemed not to care that she had already banned Browse for class reductionism in f/feminism, and instead did some kind of math to assume that I was banning primarily for the sex work stuff, instead of assuming I was taking a measured decision. All the way through looks like someone who has something personal against me (since the last thing) and has taken it upon herself to 'take one for the team' for raddle when I make a decision.
This is the first decision I've made since the last time she did that, and it should be considered in that context.

I'm not sure why you don't read the terms 'making nice' as a clear admission that she is acting completely phony towards me. Those words are only ever words that people use when they have an issue with someone that they would rather push under the rug with a fake smile than deal with. It's an admission that she does have an issue with me and that she's willing to pretend that she doesn't for appearances or site cohesion or whatever.

What you called 'apologetic' didn't actually have any apology, and that's no accident. If it had I might have taken the interpretation that she wasn't just "making nice" but was interested in a good faith relationship with me. Instead my interpretation is that she has an issue with me since last time (when she pushed things under the rug the first time, causing all this bullshit by not dealing with it then) and now will likely act as my personal cop and frame herself as bravely taking one for raddle whenever she takes issue with something I did.

And these aren't even all the things I took issue with in her interactions that day.

It makes me feel that if I can't take the time to write a one or two page essay explaining why I ban somebody, then I shouldn't be banning anybody.

I don't know why you've went on the tangent you did about women and feminism as if somehow I don't know these things. I don't need a lecture about feminism and especially about feminism in relation to porn or sex work. I'm deeply embedded in an anarchic sex worker community and these conversations make up the background to our everyday lives. That's why I could see and smell the stink of SWERF on Browse and that's why it made up (only part of) why I banned him, which I made clear when I did ban him.

Hopefully my reasoning is clearer to you. Sorry to make you read all this. I'm open to hearing what you think, whatever it is.

5

ziq wrote (edited )

It makes me feel that if I can't take the time to write a one or two page essay explaining why I ban somebody, then I shouldn't be banning anybody.

I don't object to your ban of the tankie at all, I object to you accusing bloodrose of being a bad actor for asking about the policy on being anti-pornhub, which arose from you saying you were banning the tankie for being 'swerfy' (and a tankie).

What she said didn't read as being in bad faith to me at all, it just looked like she wanted clarification on if by 'banned for being swerfy', you meant "banned for being anti-pornhub" - clarification which you kinda sorta gave her by saying it was a multifaceted ban, but then followed it up with words about her that have seemingly made her quit the site in frustration.

You once called me 'swerfy' for saying "reddit is a glorified porn site" (as in it's filled with mostly-stolen porn), so I especially relate to her frustration. I fully understand why she would be concerned that this ban would become official policy and speaking ill of the porn industry would get people labelled as swerfs and banned in the future. It would make a lot of feminists uncomfortable if people were being labelled anti-sex-worker for speaking ill of the porn industry.

She made clear this wasn't about browse, who she recognized as a problem user, but about site policy in regards to opposing the porn industry. You don't need to write an essay to explain you banned browse for glorifying the neo-fascist Chinese state and saying all states should emulate China - and not for being anti-pornhub.

For years Pornhub has repeatedly been caught profiting from videos of children being raped. Of course feminists are going to be wary after seeing someone who was critical of pornhub getting banned, regardless of that person's auth politics. They're not sticking up for browse or their politics, they're sticking up for themselves and anyone who opposes corporations who profit from child rape.

edit

I don't know why you've went on the tangent you did about women and feminism

It's not a tangent, it's central to the issue. It's why some women can feel isolated, or even triggered by discussions where (mostly men) defend the porn industry or speak positively about a giant company that makes millions from child rape and work stolen from sex workers and people are accused of being swerfs if they don't fall in line.

I don't need a lecture about feminism

You're telling me not to lecture you, but you tried to tell bloodrose to read the f/sex_work sticky and sidebar, which really seemed like a roundabout way of accusing her of not supporting sex workers, so I feel my lecture was appropriate under the circumstances. Feminists can speak out against the porn industry without being swerfs.

Also, that sticky and sidebar don't say anything of relevance to that conversation, and probably just made her feel shitty. She's not a SWERF.

3

FuckCopyright wrote (edited )

I would wish I had less of a sex drive or none of it entirely so this wouldn't be an issue. In part I've tried to play games instead of watch porn all night. Porn is causing me issues I'd rather not talk about here, and this is with issues unrelated to my upbringing (even though they're not that great with sexuality) - I don't exactly condone what yourbrainonporn.com stands for though compared to what OP does. I also don't plan to have sex too for unrelated reasons.

1