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

The Internet Is for Porn

themargins.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 460 posts

Re: The Internet Is for Porn

#221

Post by PartiallyTyped »

enriquto wrote: post #118
bonoboTP wrote: post #108

"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 co…

> Everything in life is about sex, except sex. Sex is about power. What? No. This is idiotic. Who said that?

It was used in House of Cards.

Re: The Internet Is for Porn

#223

Post by _huayra_ »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #185
_huayra_ wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 legal…

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?

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.

Re: The Internet Is for Porn

#224

Post by Chris2048 »

ahelwer wrote: post #142
_huayra_ wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 / pi…

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.

> named & shamed a random working man for spending money on porn

How would they find out?

Re: The Internet Is for Porn

#225

Post by Chris2048 »

lumberjack wrote: post #178
_huayra_ wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 / pi…

For the record no real feminist would publish this horseshit. It is one thing to advocate for better conditions for sex workers. It is another thing entirely to pimp young girls on the internet, and to even equate the two while pretending to be a feminist is just despicable.

> no real feminist

and yet this gets expressed all the time under the feminist banner. Either real feminists have no control over the brand, or it's been hijacked.

Re: The Internet Is for Porn

#226

Post by k__ »

bawolff wrote: post #217
kodah wrote: post #29

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 w…

> 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.

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.

Re: The Internet Is for Porn

#227

Post by klunger »

_huayra_ wrote: post #110
burntoutfire wrote: post #43

> [About SV] An observer might note that all of these companies are dominated by men, in an industry dominated by men, tightly interwoven with a venture capital industry that is super-dominated by men. So it’s curious why none of these men have shown any interest in addressing the massive and lucrative sex work industry that overwhelmingly serves, well, men; until you consider who pays the real costs of that industry…

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 / pi…

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.

Re: The Internet Is for Porn

#228

Post by nailer »

morelisp wrote: post #25
lumberjack wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

Mia Khalifa seems to be a liar:

https://www.ibtimes.com/bangbros-says-mia-khalifa-lied-about...

Re: The Internet Is for Porn

#229

Post by dragonwriter »

_huayra_ wrote: post #110
burntoutfire wrote: post #43

> [About SV] An observer might note that all of these companies are dominated by men, in an industry dominated by men, tightly interwoven with a venture capital industry that is super-dominated by men. So it’s curious why none of these men have shown any interest in addressing the massive and lucrative sex work industry that overwhelmingly serves, well, men; until you consider who pays the real costs of that industry…

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 / pi…

> 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”.

Re: The Internet Is for Porn

#230

Post by OwlsParlay »

lumberjack wrote: post #178
_huayra_ wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 / pi…

For the record no real feminist would publish this horseshit. It is one thing to advocate for better conditions for sex workers. It is another thing entirely to pimp young girls on the internet, and to even equate the two while pretending to be a feminist is just despicable.

The topic of sex work is probably one of the last contentious issues in feminism - is it exploitative or is it empowering? Is it just like any other form of work or is the sexual aspect inherently more dehummanising and alientating than normal work?
Post reply on HN