Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sex censorship killed the internet we love

engadget.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 520 posts

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#381

Post by minkzilla »

state_less wrote: post #324
harimau777 wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From a theological perspective (which may be different from the social norms that a given church teaches) I think the answer would be that it is bad if it is outside of marriage, not done in love (e.g. objectifying someone), or if it becomes more important to someone than God (which would be considered idolatry).

It is bad... It is good... Why is it okay to treat people with such heavy handed authoritarianism. I wish more explanation was given.

There is, at least in the Catholic tradition, explanations for pretty much every teaching. From the doctors of the church (the most famous being Augustine), papal encyclicals, and ecumenicla councils. It is all very philosophically and scientifically grounded. You might disagree with the reasoning or a base assumption (natural law) but there are explanations. Normally it has to do with how your action effects yourself and others. In this case objectifying someone causes you to perhaps treat them poorly and prevents you from seeing the inherent dignity in them as a person.

I’m not making a comment on this vs. violence because I think that’s a much more cultural thing in America and I haven’t looked into the Church’s stance on portrayal of violence, if it has one.

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#382

Post by minkzilla »

bouncycastle wrote: post #351
beobab wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Enjoying sex isn’t a sin. Sex is supposed to be held in the highest regard. It’s a wonderful and joyous thing. The point is, I believe, to avoid cheapening it, making it less than the truly awesome thing it is. It’s supposed to be a priceless gift shared with your true love. Packaging it and selling it makes it less valuable. I believe that if you approach the subject with that mindset, a lot of the decisions that so…

This is a meme I've heard before. From an anthropological view, I think sex (or the restriction of it through memes like this) is used as a way for one group to dominate over another group. Usually, a tool user by religion, especially around the dogma of marriage, where religious have the authority. This meme is so effective and convincing that it's often propagated without much thought.

Slightly off topic but why are you referring to gp as a meme?

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#383

Post by Lazare »

zozbot123 wrote: post #233
Lazare wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Consensual sex work is mentioned, my perception is I would be more interested in data than one person's subjecting perception. > I hear of no stories where people have found happy and fulfilled lives as prostitutes One of the major points of the article is that the voices of sex workers have been driven off the internet. You can't justify censorship by saying that none of the now-censored voices are complaining. >…

The problem with legalizing prostitution is that it opens up a sanctioned venue which human traffickers can use to slip under the radar. You can have the best regulation in the world and you'll still fail to have only the entirely above-board, willing sex work that the sex workers themselves would like. It's the same reason why e.g. we ban all new elephant ivory, period-- even ivory that supposedly does not come from…

Good theory. That totally could be an issue. Maybe sex work is like ivory, and not like, I dunno, all the other jobs human beings do! Or maybe not.

Luckily, we can check NZ, since they legalised sex work, and research has since been done to see what the answer was: http://www.gaatw.org/publications/SWorganising/NewZealand-we...

And actually, none of that is true! Actually it turns out that what really enables trafficking and the abuse of sex workers is situations where they can't go to the police, or where brothels have to hide their existence from the authorities entirely. Once you're legal and regulated, it's really easy for the immigration officials to show up and start checking paperwork.

> you'll still fail to have only the entirely above-board, willing sex work that the sex workers themselves would like.

Funny you should say that; again in the linked report it was noted that NZ does have an issue with that, but not from trafficked women, but rather from migrants. Due to anti-trafficking sentiment, the original law legalising prostitution banned people on temporary visas from working in the industry, which means people on temporary visas are the only sex workers in the country who can find themselves subjected to abusive work conditions while being unable to report it to the authorities.

It makes sense, of course; everywhere you ban sex work you create a shadow that victimisation can take place in.

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#385

Post by klmr »

pnw_hazor wrote: post #373
marcus_holmes wrote: post #127

I find the US prudishness thing so fascinating. I'm travelling at the moment, and meeting lots of Americans (and Europeans for contrast). There's definitely a huge difference in tolerance for swearing and blasphemy. Also several well-educated and seemingly intelligent Americans who hold strong racist opinions. But that's another subject. I guess it all comes down to the religion. Americans do seem to be more religiou…

Christians aren't banning content on the internet. Tumbr, Facebook, and Twitter don't care a hoot about what Christians think. In some mainstream internet corners Christian content is more likely to banned than purient content.

Could you give an example? I’m drawing a blank.

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#386

Post by brobdingnagians »

klmr wrote: post #376
brobdingnagians wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My church doesn't teach it's only for procreation, and we are solidly Christian. We teach that it's also wholesome, fun, and great to be enjoyed between husbad and wife; a spark of the divine, if you will. That it is between a husband and wife and God to decide when to have children, and so contraception is totally appropriate. Sex helps build the relationship. I remember when my dad taught a lesson at church about h…

> Not prudish here, just also very conscious [that sex] should be between life-long committed people That is prudish. To be perfectly clear, it’s entirely fine to decide that this is the right thing for yourself. But the way your comment is written makes it clear that you think this is the only correct way, for everyone. Yeah, that’s extremely prudish.

definition of prudish: `having or revealing a tendency to be easily shocked by matters relating to sex or nudity; excessively concerned with sexual propriety.`

Having a belief that a loved one would be happier if they do not take drugs and acting on that to attempt to persuade them is love and concern (and they are free to disagree with me). Having a belief that a loved one would be happier if refrained from using sex in a certain way is love and concern; not prudishness. We teach our children to not run in front of cars or to read Plato, why not impart other things we think will help them? whether or not you agree with the particulars, it is every persons duty to try to help the world be a bit better and happier.

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#387

Post by hobs »

gottebp wrote: post #375
hobs wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's completely a cultural artifact though, there's no reason to be squeamish about sex and to accept violence. Plenty of cultures have much looser taboos around this than yours, its not how human beings are wired.

If something is cultural, why does that imply it is automatically bad or should be tossed aside? This is not to say any culture is all good or all perfect, however didn't much of culture come about through generation after generation evolving and learning and passing on what worked? I invoke Chesterton's fence here: Fences take work to put up, and someone put in that work. First understand why it was put in place and…

You can make a faithful argument that a particular culture is good, though you wont find me backing it.

That's not what was said though, what was said was that it was human nature itself, which is bogus.

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#388

Post by Riverheart »

readingnews wrote: post #311

The author seems to equate facebook, google, twitter, etc with "the internet". I agree, those are some major heavy hitting players on the network, but it seems the author wants the internet of yore, where it was the wild wild west. That internet still exists, you just can not get there from facebook, google, twitter. So why do we continue to use those services?

Too be fair, these silos are the internet for a vast swathe of people. Google has always been a gateway to discovering new places on the internet and as she pointed out, they are actively suppressing search results they don't like. They don't know there are or can't find the places outside the silos.

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#389

Post by Juliate »

gottebp wrote: post #375
hobs wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's completely a cultural artifact though, there's no reason to be squeamish about sex and to accept violence. Plenty of cultures have much looser taboos around this than yours, its not how human beings are wired.

If something is cultural, why does that imply it is automatically bad or should be tossed aside? This is not to say any culture is all good or all perfect, however didn't much of culture come about through generation after generation evolving and learning and passing on what worked? I invoke Chesterton's fence here: Fences take work to put up, and someone put in that work. First understand why it was put in place and…

> If something is cultural, why does that imply it is automatically bad or should be tossed aside?

It does not. But neither does it imply it's good.

Because something is cultural does not make it immune to analysis and critique.

Especially today, as we see firsthand how much culture, minds, beliefs can be influenced, manipulated, in a few years-time, for the very political and financial interest of some very specific clique.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Village_(2004_film) is a pretty nice exploration of that topic.

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#390

Post by zozbot123 »

Lazare wrote: post #383
zozbot123 wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with legalizing prostitution is that it opens up a sanctioned venue which human traffickers can use to slip under the radar. You can have the best regulation in the world and you'll still fail to have only the entirely above-board, willing sex work that the sex workers themselves would like. It's the same reason why e.g. we ban all new elephant ivory, period-- even ivory that supposedly does not come from…

Good theory. That totally could be an issue. Maybe sex work is like ivory, and not like, I dunno, all the other jobs human beings do! Or maybe not. Luckily, we can check NZ, since they legalised sex work, and research has since been done to see what the answer was: http://www.gaatw.org/publications/SWorganising/NewZealand-we... And actually, none of that is true! Actually it turns out that what really enables traffic…

NZ is one of the countries in the world with the highest level of broad-based economic development, and is literally in the middle of nowhere-- you couldn't find a less representative example. It's nice that they have managed to successfully regulate sex work, but this tells us practically nothing about how the same policy choice would work in a highly-diverse place like the average US state (and you might bring up Nevada here, which does have some limited form of legal prostitution - but guess what, that too is in the middle of nowhere, and basically not representative! Especially if you exclude Vegas and the other areas where prostitution is not legal) or European country, or anywhere else in the Western world for that matter.
Post reply on HN