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

Porn site xHamster blocks North Carolina users to protest anti-LGBT law

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 123 posts

Re: Porn site xHamster blocks North Carolina users to protest anti-LGBT law

#81

Post by liquidzoot »

falcolas wrote: post #39
coldpie wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'll go further than imply, and outright state that pornography is inherently and irredeemably bad. While I don't agree, I also think this is a reasonable stance for someone to take. I would encourage others who disagree with this comment to avoid downvoting it simply because you disagree with it.

Personally, I disagree with his tone and "you do the research for why I'm right". It doesn't contribute to this discussion in any way.

I realize that not everyone accepts that pornography is inherently harmful as a medium, and thought to avoid that discussion (which has been going on for longer than we've been alive) in favor of discussing how futile this act of faux solidarity is.

Re: Porn site xHamster blocks North Carolina users to protest anti-LGBT law

#82

Post by pavel_lishin »

cristianpascu wrote: post #43

So a porn website (by far, the most effective mean to objectify women) is protesting a law that adds a new layer of social pressure towards women and girls. I don't see men having a problem with women entering mens room. But I do see women feeling uncomfortable with a man entering woman's room. No matter how far will the theory of subjective gender go, it will take decades, if ever, until women and men will simply ig…

> My concern is two fold. One, for transgender persons, who will fear the reaction they will get every time they enter the restroom.

I'd wager that most transgender people who use the bathroom they wish to use are already dressing, acting, and mostly passing for their gender. It's not a tall woman in a skirt walking into the men's room, nor someone with a full beard walking into a women's room.

And I'd also wager that the reaction they get when walking into the wrong bathroom is probably much, much worse to deal with on a daily basis.

Re: Porn site xHamster blocks North Carolina users to protest anti-LGBT law

#83

Post by mc32 »

ethanbond wrote: post #79
mc32 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think because in many cases porn can be exploitative and can perpetuate stereotypes of aggression in sex and set unrealistic expectations for many people who then develop complexes. It's a complex issue. On the one hand sex is natural, on the other hand the way it's portrayed can have major influence on how young adults (and even mature adults) view sex which can be loving and consensual to violent and unrealistic.…

Yes, I agree. It can . Just like film can encourage aggressive behavior. Or video games or music or fashion or art literally anything. But to act like none of those can equivalently be used for good is pretty unfair.

If it didn't, advertising would not work. I take that it works because companies spend billions trying to persuade people and do via advertising.

Re: Porn site xHamster blocks North Carolina users to protest anti-LGBT law

#84

Post by liquidzoot »

vox_mollis wrote: post #66
liquidzoot wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll go further than imply, and outright state that pornography is inherently and irredeemably bad. Enough has been written and said about it, so I'll leave that to you to sort out. I think though that for one of several dozen companies to shut down services just means that people will get it elsewhere, republican or not. They're just trying to look progressive, but real progress is fundamentally incompatible with th…

I'll go further than imply, and outright state that pornography is inherently and irredeemably bad. I agree with you, but porn is a small part of the larger problem that modernity presents us with hypernormal stimuli absolutely everywhere . Television, movies, calorie-dense foods, even things like HVAC. Decrying porn without decrying all forms of hypernormal stimuli seems odd.

Pornography is more than hyperstimulation: the messages in pornography are hateful towards women and minorities. Coupling those messages with the reward of orgasm is going much further.

Re: Porn site xHamster blocks North Carolina users to protest anti-LGBT law

#85

Post by wehadfun »

coldpie wrote: post #59
wehadfun wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are laws against speeding, running red lights, drinking while driving, doing drugs, and all types of things that are done every day. Laws are not sufficient.

Then clearly we should live in an anarchy. Like, what's your point?

We could outlaw using meth. But if is legal to sell, import, produce, and store meth. Then it is too easy to break the using meth law.

We could outlaw getting in car accidents. But if it is legal speed, drive drunk, and run red lights. Then it is too easy to break the car accident law.

My point is sure we outlaw harrasement but for those that may want to do that, allowing them to go into a room where women are alone and disrobed would make it too easy to break that law.

Re: Porn site xHamster blocks North Carolina users to protest anti-LGBT law

#86

Post by liquidzoot »

jmcgough wrote: post #47
idiocracy2016 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sexual exploiters fight for "equality" to sexual exploit just like the local bank robber fights for a no-guns-allowed policy among the bank staff.

Pornography doesn't innately require sexual exploitation.

Money is a coercive agent in any situation, and coerced sex acts are rape.

Re: Porn site xHamster blocks North Carolina users to protest anti-LGBT law

#87

Post by ergothus »

wehadfun wrote: post #46
jwn wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with that approach is that not all transgender people elect to have operations, so making that the minimum bar is unreasonable. A much more reasonable (non-fear mongering) approach is to use the gender the person identifies with. I don't know how you set that bar, maybe it's obvious, maybe it requires a note from a physician or similar. I think it would be fairly obvious to discern someone who's actually…

The problem with that approach is women don't feel comfortable using the bathroom with a man, regardless of what he claims to be. So who's rights are more important? The born women's or the born man's?

So then you introduce someone that has female genitalia, but looks from all outward respects to be male (possibly including facial hair if they're on hormone therapy). By law in NC this person is required to use the women's restroom. Does that increase comfort for either of them?

Example: https://twitter.com/JayShef/status/712845760287494144/photo/...

Frankly, while I like being comfortable, one should always think twice before passing laws purely for the purpose of increasing comfort. (Particularly in this case, where the discomfort appears to be far more theoretical than common). When I think of the society my grandparents, or even, heck, my PARENTS found "comfortable", I would feel very sad to live there.

Re: Porn site xHamster blocks North Carolina users to protest anti-LGBT law

#88

Post by vectorpush »

jwn wrote: post #24
ElComradio wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I haven't seen discussed is the real objection going on is that NC insists you use the bathroom as defined by your birth certificate, and you can change that post-op. So people think that's too onerous, so what _should_ the standard be? Should you simply file something stating you are whatever gender? Do you have to present as the gender to some degree? Who decides if you are doing it enough? Etc.

The problem with that approach is that not all transgender people elect to have operations, so making that the minimum bar is unreasonable. A much more reasonable (non-fear mongering) approach is to use the gender the person identifies with. I don't know how you set that bar, maybe it's obvious, maybe it requires a note from a physician or similar. I think it would be fairly obvious to discern someone who's actually…

> I don't know how you set that bar, maybe it's obvious.

Perhaps you feel it's obvious to you, but do you trust the arbitrary judgement of some company's random employee? What if the employee or establishment decides that this is a case of "some guy who wishes to get into the women's restroom" but the patron disagrees? Should we always implicitly trust the word of the patron? Should a line be drawn? If so, where? Who can we trust as the arbiter of "genuine" gender identity? Is there any criteria that a reasonable person could use to ascertain if someone is using the "wrong" bathroom? Should we even care in any capacity who uses which bathroom?

What about situations where someone with a political agenda intends to deliberately make things difficult by doing their best to straddle the gray area between honest expression of gender identity and calculated abuse of our good faith? What about a scenario where someone's gender genuinely feels fluid and they find that they can identify as both genders at different times?

As an anecdote, I have a trans-woman friend who normally uses the woman's bathroom (without issue as far as I am aware), but who sometimes (when drunk at a bar) has deigned to use the men's room at times when the line to the woman's room was really long. In her own words "why should I make the line longer for women who can't use the urinal when I can be in and out of the men's room in a minute?". We have jokingly accused her of just not wanting to wait in line, and none of us care at all what bathroom she uses, but I could envision a scenario where this behavior becomes very controversial (if she can use a man's bathroom, why should she ever encumber the already heavily trafficked woman's room, some might argue)?

IMO, the best way to go about this would be to just have unisex bathrooms or urinal & stall bathrooms and allow people to use whichever they prefer. I don't see how any system that is contingent on someone's gender can work in this political climate since that requires determining gender in the first place.

Re: Porn site xHamster blocks North Carolina users to protest anti-LGBT law

#89

Post by jmcgough »

liquidzoot wrote: post #86
jmcgough wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pornography doesn't innately require sexual exploitation.

Money is a coercive agent in any situation, and coerced sex acts are rape.

Non-consentual sex acts are rape. My ex did porn for years and no aspect of that was non-consentual.

There's also plenty of amateur porn on xHamster.

Re: Porn site xHamster blocks North Carolina users to protest anti-LGBT law

#90

Post by JeremyMorgan »

partiallypro wrote: post #45
coldpie wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's about raising awareness by generating headlines just like this one. Porn is a taboo-ish topic, so the news loves to cover it. More coverage of and negative pressure on these reprehensible laws is only a good thing.

The people introducing this bill aren't going to be the type to be sad that porn is being blocked in their state. If anything they'll see it as a win/win.

Maybe. There have been more incidents with "family values" lawmakers in public bathrooms than transgendered folks. Also "family values" states like Utah are often the biggest consumers of porn. Things are not always what they seem.
Post reply on HN