21–30 of 192 posts
How is this not sexual? The fact that it's a stock photo, or that the woman is pregnant, is irrelevant. It's very clearly a sexual picture.
This is a relic mindset from the start of the Internet. The website itself even visually reflects that. Is there a marginal grey area around adult content? Yes. But beyond that margin is a vast ocean of explicit, intentional adult content. As someone who grew up in both the decentralized "new" era of the Internet, and now lives in the hyper localized algo driven version of it... It's all shit. And I'd never want my k…
It's simply not a good way to discuss the online safety act. One could apply the same kind of reasoning to theft: "I took a friend's car without his consent, but I returned it, with a full tank. It would make zero sense for him to denounce me to the police. They wouldn't even think of prosecuting. People borrow things all the time."
> The image attached to this blog post is a stock photo of a nude pregnant woman. Absolutely nothing sexual. How is this not sexual? The fact that it's a stock photo, or that the woman is pregnant, is irrelevant. It's very clearly a sexual picture.
Some Brazilian tribes had fertility festivals with dances meant to arouse the males, because simple nudity wasn't enough to get them interested in sex. So maybe making nudity less common or accessible only makes it more valuable as a sexual thing.
It's a much bigger question why, such a completely natural and normal thing, like nudity, in the supposed to be educated - at least in basic biology - 2025, be made and exclusive thing. The intro of the 1986 Once upon a time... Life animation series, that's the best human biology educational program that exists to this very day, starts with scenes many would classify as nudity - but it's also essential to the topic a…
Western culture and its morals around sex, gender and nudity are founded on the patriarchal taboos of the Abrahamic religions, whereby human nudity in general, and female nudity in particular (because women are the source of original sin,) is to be considered shameful.
That and we're currently in the midst of a right-wing political reactionary shift against the progressive norms of prior generations (and a moral panic about "groomers" and "pedophiles") which makes censorship of this type far easier.
What’s funny is that the image doesn’t load for me, and I’m in FL where we do have laws about online adult content.
Could use a NSFW warning tag
So it's not "adult content", but probably "NSFW" unless you work in a maternity hospital.
Just as a comparator, the Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy leads with a clothed pregnant woman (unlike the pages on e.g. labia, penis, anus, breast, which lead with a direct shot of the body part), and overall that page has photos or illustrations of 4 clothed and 3 nude women (and a CT scan volume render, does that count as nude or not?)
Hard question, and Instagram is getting abused by this. They allowed breastfeeding as a non-porn category, now you have hundreds of OnlyFans account faking breastfeeding. Effectively ruining the progress for everybody.
This is a relic mindset from the start of the Internet. The website itself even visually reflects that. Is there a marginal grey area around adult content? Yes. But beyond that margin is a vast ocean of explicit, intentional adult content. As someone who grew up in both the decentralized "new" era of the Internet, and now lives in the hyper localized algo driven version of it... It's all shit. And I'd never want my k…
That is why parental controls exist. As a close to middle aged adult without any kids, why do I have to hand over my ID to protect YOUR kids?
But that isn't want this is about. The people who don't want porn around aren't doing it because of the kids, they are doing it for some religious/cult belief.
If you look into the history of how law enforcement has protected children in their crusade against porn, you will see countless examples of them being able to protect a child, but instead leave them with their abusers for years to gather evidence.
Traci Lords began filming porn at 14 with a fake ID her kiddie diddling "stepdad" got her. The FBI admitted to knowing she was underage basically from the start, but "allowed her to continue" until she was 18 before attempting to prosecute her - instead of extricating the child from the exploitative pornographers. [1]
The FBI ran child porn sites for years as honey pots, they even bragged about running the largest CP site on the internet. Instead of providing information how they found the users in discovery they would drop charges. [2]
Anti-porn movement in the US. [3]
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traci_Lords:_Underneath_It_All
2: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-39180204
3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-pornography_movement_in_t...
Some Brazilian tribes had fertility festivals with dances meant to arouse the males, because simple nudity wasn't enough to get them interested in sex. So maybe making nudity less common or accessible only makes it more valuable as a sexual thing.
It's a much bigger question why, such a completely natural and normal thing, like nudity, in the supposed to be educated - at least in basic biology - 2025, be made and exclusive thing. The intro of the 1986 Once upon a time... Life animation series, that's the best human biology educational program that exists to this very day, starts with scenes many would classify as nudity - but it's also essential to the topic a…
As Nietzsche said, the time has come when we have to pay for having been Christians for two thousand years. That's the simple answer, nudity and sexuality (also entirely natural and normal), have been deemed sinful, you're supposed to avert your eyes from it, and so on. It's so deeply ingrained in Western culture even secularized people still haven't shaken it.
It varies though, being German with half of my family having lived in the GDR, it is funny to see in particular Americans when you talk about nude beaches or mixed saunas and the general Freikörperkultur (lit: free body culture) that was so common and still has carried over.
> The image attached to this blog post is a stock photo of a nude pregnant woman. Absolutely nothing sexual. How is this not sexual? The fact that it's a stock photo, or that the woman is pregnant, is irrelevant. It's very clearly a sexual picture.
If you say “everyone’s idea of what is sexual can be different,” I would agree, which I think is part of the point of posts like this: why does the most restrictive definition of sexual content always seem to be the point of view our lawmakers are protecting?
Edit: she’s not showering, I think. I went back and looked at it, when I read the post from my phone I thought she was showering.