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

241–250 of 460 posts

Re: The Internet Is for Porn

#241

Post by ben_w »

adwn wrote: post #153
ben_w wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not @lostgame and I’m not ace, but I can easily imagine that a constant barrage of stuff that you’re not into could be triggering/empathise with someone saying that it troubles them. For example, and I know this is a “me” problem rather than something objective in the world: I find BDSM quite repellent because (a) I cannot at a glance tell if the image presented is roleplay or actual assault, and (b) because I am…

> I find BDSM quite repellent [...] orgasm-noises in porn [...] upsetting I'm not denying that some people feel that way, but it's extremely easy to avoid coming into contact with depictions of BDSM or pornographic orgasm noises – unless you deliberately browse adult content.

That style of quotation makes it seem like I personally find orgasm noises upsetting rather than that I believe others can. Was that how you understood my original comment? If so, I need to improve my style, because the latter not the former.

As for orgasm noises… they are sometimes used as joke content, even outside porn, (is this similar to the way slapstick violence is used as a joke outside horror films? I’m not sure, but feels like an interesting comparison).

Re: The Internet Is for Porn

#242

Post by Chris2048 »

vsareto wrote: post #20

I'm glad that monetized platforms like Twitch and OnlyFans exist. It's an accessible way for the younger generations to make ludicrous amounts of money for not too much up-front investment. There's definitely work and downsides involved, just not like some lesser paid, more credentialed professions. Hopefully this puts pressure on the essential jobs in society to actually raise compensation in comparison. The rest of…

By "the younger generations" you mean "the younger generations of women", since I can't imagine many men making as much money.

Is this really progress towards equality, or a generation of women self-objectifying themselves.

Re: The Internet Is for Porn

#243

Post by polishdude20 »

bonoboTP wrote: post #167
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People dislike drug comsumers because they feel drugs are a cheat: you get unearned pleasure without having to work for it. While I can certainly imagine someone feeling this way, I've never thought this and I've never heard anyone express this perspective. I think you may be imagining too hard .

It's interesting to hear because I've been assuming this is obviously why people don't like people taking drugs. That it will drive kids away from productive stuff like studying because the joy of achieving something like academic or athletic success can't keep up with the bliss that drugs provide. Why else? Perhaps you mean that drugs physically harm you, like you will become a methhead or crackhead with your teeth…

I think the main issue I have with drugs is when they have the possibility of harming others. I don't mean to say all drugs and all doses have this effect. There are drugs and doses that can cause someone to go crazy and hurt people or damage property.

In the other hand, you also have a feeling of this person not being a productive member of society. My tax dollars go to fixing this persons' mistakes. I wouldn't complain if my tax dollars went to properly rehabilitating these people though.

Re: The Internet Is for Porn

#244

Post by SolarNet »

fullshark wrote: post #44

This guy seems to be operating on the assumption that MEN are to blame for pornography's status as a social pariah. As if mothers everywhere would be proud of their daughters producing pornography on Onlyfans if only their husbands weren't in their ear shaming them.

> This guy seems to be operating on the assumption that MEN are to blame for pornography's status as a social pariah

It's called the patriarchy for a reason. I don't know about you, but the priests I see ranting about pornography, the politicians I see talking about regulating it, the police who harass sex workers, people running groups like nofap, so on and so on, are men.

Yes of course women also contribute to it. But when I read the article, I didn't so much see it as blaming men, as explaining how the current social system is organized, and how that relates to gender. This is the point of the critical study of gender (AKA Women's Studies), not laying blame, but describing the system and how to confront it.

Not understanding that, treating it like someone is trying to blame an entire gender, rather than simply explaining how we got here, is why people make jokes about fragile masculinity and snowflakes on the right.

Re: The Internet Is for Porn

#245

Post by dragonwriter »

> Why did it take this long? Why would no one else have the courage to address sex work?

OnlyFans isn't the only tech attempt to “address sex work”, it's basically a hybrid of the premium user content with centralized content infrastructure model of many recorded-video sites with the patronage / p2p subscription model of Patreon, etc. It may (or may not) be revolutionary in effect, but it's a stepwise change in model building on other recent stepwise changes.

It's not something that came out of nowhere after a long period of no innovation.

Re: The Internet Is for Porn

#246

Post by tacommonsense »

seibelj wrote: post #16

This is a super good read, if you have 10 minutes I highly recommend. I have absolutely no problems with pornography and if my own daughter decided this was the industry she wanted to enter I would help jumpstart her career anyway I could just as I would any career she chose. My wife and I are very free spirits and the previous HN discussions on Pornhub / NYT article made me feel like I was taking crazy pills and liv…

> I have absolutely no problems with pornography and if my own daughter decided this was the industry she wanted to enter I would help jumpstart her career anyway I could just as I would any career she chose.

> My wife and I are very free spirits and the previous HN discussions on Pornhub / NYT article made me feel like I was taking crazy pills and living in 1850’s Victorian England. The pearl clutching was so intense I was very worried the pearls would break from pressure!

Maybe because almost no man of any quality whatsoever would want to raise a daughter to be a whore, used and abused in all degrading possible ways. Funny that.

There is nothing "free" or "progressive" or any 2020 buzzword that would make this argument anything other than disgusting. As if raising your daughter to be used in gangbangs and things like that is anything other than pure form of degeneracy and the absolute lowest of the low.

Some people think that just because they are capable of doing the god awful nasty things that no sane man or woman would do, that they are somehow "progressive" as if that takes some special skill or something...

What skill do women need to have in porn? Fake tits, fake lips, fake asses in some cases, fake everything.. they just get paid a lot of money because there are not enough insane people that want to do it.

Fathers talking about daughters being literal whores. Jumpstarting... What is happening with this world..

Re: The Internet Is for Porn

#247

Post by memling »

bsanr2 wrote: post #127
rozab wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would discourage young people from getting face tattoos. I think that's a better analogy.

Facial tattoos are a traditional practice for many ethnic groups. Many modern practitioners feel that they're reclaiming a practice that was persecuted under American Puritanism. It's not that there can't be reasonable appearance standards; however, it would be incredibly disingenuous to claim that those standards are established within a neutral cultural atmosphere. I personally find white dudes with short or no hai…

> Facial tattoos are a traditional practice for many ethnic groups. Many modern practitioners feel that they're reclaiming a practice that was persecuted under American Puritanism.

I'm curious about this: is there any record of actual Puritans persecuting someone explicitly for having a facial tattoo? (It is true, of course, that Puritans in England and the colonies did not have a modern perspective about the separation of church and state and persecuted minorities like the Quakers. A revulsion to their sense of justice is also pretty understandable, but justice was pretty rough back then, too.)

Re: The Internet Is for Porn

#248

Post by witherk »

klunger wrote: post #227
_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…

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…

I think you're right if you're only putting 1 sex worker and 1 porn addict on the scale, but I would imagine that for every sex worker there could be 100 porn addicts watching them, the math gets more tricky.

Re: The Internet Is for Porn

#249

Post by Chris2048 »

morelisp wrote: post #96
Avicebron wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused as to why being black or muslim would be a "negative presence"...

In the context of > doesn't help their future career aspirations it fits perfectly (unfortunately).

> doesn't help their future career aspirations

only if you confuse causation. If most black dudes have poorer career prospects, it doesn't mean it's only because they are black, there are a load of other correlating factors.

If women as a group did worse as a group because some do porn, you wouldn't say "Don't be a woman", you'd be more specific: "If you are a woman, don't do porn".

Re: The Internet Is for Porn

#250

Post by Chris2048 »

alisonkisk wrote: post #51
zthrowaway wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only investment being that they're selling their body for money, and generating a negative presence online that doesn't help their future career aspirations. I don't think this is a good thing to encourage young people to do.

They are selling pictures of their body. The body gets nearly no wear and tear for the work. There's only negative presence in the sense of haters. Would you also encourage young people to avoid being Black, or Muslim, because that's a "negative presence"?

Being a mob hit-man will attract haters too.

If the moneys good, would you disregard that?

Post reply on HN