Social media sexualization of western women

nullzero

jill_valentine wrote: »

Nah, there's been a very volatile anti porn thing going on in white supremacist circles for a while.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7bj9w/anti-porn-extremism-pornhub-traffickinghub-exodus-cry-ncose

The article mentions people on Gab talking about killing a Pornhub executive - the same guy's house was burned down this week in an arson. Will be interesting to see what arrests are made.

Are you suggesting that anyone who disagrees with you on this topic is potentially a white supremacist?

nullzero

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

I suppose not, but you decided it's sleazy, not exactly an endorsement.

How would you describe it? Empowering? Brave? Trailblazing?

Tacitus Kilgore

nullzero wrote: »

A lot of people are paid for their skills and knowledge.

You understand that concept I take it?

Yes, and how does one deliver those skills or that knowledge? Do they provide their presence in a building/at a computer/on a phone??



Ignoring the most obvious example of: any person who does manual labour....

meeeeh

nullzero wrote: »

I disagree with the first part of your post, as usual I think you're going off on a crusade, but I digress.

As for what it says about me in relation to the topic I'm confused by that.

Here's a question for you. As a feminist, would you prefer to see a young woman in a professional field competing with men in say perhaps a traditionally male dominated industry, or would you prefer to see that same young woman shaking her arse on onlyfans being paid for he trouble by sleazy weirdos?

Which scenario describes progress for women in society?

Also, as an aside, would you engage in this type of behaviour? Shaking your arse on whatever platform paid by sickos to show off your body?

I have no opinion on what I prefer women to do. Three days ago Current Affairs warriors were outraged about women in STEM now it's this. What I would prefer would be white knights in this thread to stop occupying their pretty little heads about what they want women to do and start thinking what they want to do themselves. If you think western women are too sexualized then stop sexualizing them. It's easy. Those platforms are there because they have customers.

nullzero

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

Yes, and how does one deliver those skills or that knowledge? Do they provide their presence in a building/at a computer/on a phone??



Ignoring the most obvious example of: any person who does manual labour....

Your laboring (no pun intended) this point.

The notion that all workers are selling their bodies is nonsensical.

Do you really believe that someone sitting at a computer is selling their body?

Tacitus Kilgore

nullzero wrote: »

Your laboring (no pun intended) this point.

The notion that all workers are selling their bodies is nonsensical.

Do you really believe that someone sitting at a computer is selling their body?

I do, because they are.


Do you really believe they aren't?

KeepItLight

jill_valentine wrote: »

Everybody with a job chooses to sell their bodies every day. There isn't an inherent moral difference between having to burst yourself hunched over a till in Dunnes while a manager hurls abuse at you and people cough in your face vs having an OnlyFans. The latter's a bit less exploitative, I suppose.

Such a deconstructionist approach to sex and sexuality is a very modern, Western mindset, and would be the anthesis of almost every culture that's existed throughout history. We'll see where it takes us over the next few decades.

Leg End Reject

meeeeh wrote: »

I have no opinion on what I prefer women to do. Three days ago Current Affairs warriors were outraged about women in STEM now it's this. What I would prefer would be white knights in this thread to stop occupying their pretty little heads about what they want women to do and start thinking what they want to do themselves. If you think western women are too sexualized then stop sexualizing them. It's easy. Those platforms are there because they have customers.

No one was outraged about women in STEM, it was gender quotas that was the issue.

Would you like your daughter to sell content online?

Tacitus Kilgore

Leg End Reject wrote: »

No one was outraged about women in STEM, it was gender quotas that was the issue.

Would you like your daughter to sell content online?

Would you watch another persons daughter have sex on tv, in a movie, or online? most of us have - one way or another.

nullzero

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

I do, because they are.


Do you really believe they aren't?

I think the notion that a person sitting a a computer selling their body is a dreadful interpretation of what they are doing.

The amount of physical activity involved in using a computer in relation to the amount of effort used in a cerebral sense would probably be represented as 90% cerebral and 10% physical.

I don't see how you can argue this point effectively.

jill_valentine

nullzero wrote: »

Everybody who works is selling their body?

That's a dreadful argument, as for the suppositions about retail employees, you could have put more effort in there as well.

You must be making a fair amount from your own onlyfans then I take it?

You taking the hump with the comparison doesn't negate it.

A site labourer is selling their physicality, their effort and likely quite a bit of their health later in life. They are selling their body in a far more literal sense than anyone on a laptop screen.

A retail worker is selling their body less obviously, but no less in reality - they are physically paid to occupy that space and do that work with their physical body, at the behest of whoever's paying them as little as possible to do so.

I'm an office worker. I sell my body every day, money is the only reason I'm sitting at that desk, looking at those spreadsheets with my eyes or typing up those business cases with my fingers or coming up with bull**** emails with my brain. I have sold the use of myself from 9 am to 5.30 every week day.

Employment is selling yourself. There's nothing fundamentally different in doing that via Onlyfans or doing it via Accenture.

Tacitus Kilgore

nullzero wrote: »

I think the notion that a person sitting a a computer selling their body is a dreadful interpretation of what they are doing.

The amount of physical activity involved in using a computer in relation to the amount of effort used in a cerebral sense would probably be represented as 90% cerebral and 10% physical.

I don't see how you can argue this point effectively.

:pac:

Do those people leave their brain at the computer for the day and head off with their body to the park is it?



the bolded bit - likewise

meeeeh

Leg End Reject wrote: »

No one was outraged about women in STEM, it was gender quotas that was the issue.

Would you like your daughter to sell content online?

No I would not. She is probably smarter than majority of boys and girls around her and I would want her to have exactly the same opportunities as boys who are not as smart as her. That will be totally fine with me.

nullzero

jill_valentine wrote: »

You taking the hump with the comparison doesn't negate it.

A site labourer is selling their physicality, their effort and likely quite a bit of their health later in life. They are selling their body in a far more literal sense than anyone on a laptop screen.

A retail worker is selling their body less obviously, but no less in reality - they are physically paid to occupy that space and do that work with their physical body, at the behest of whoever's paying them as little as possible to do so.

I'm an office worker. I sell my body every day, money is the only reason I'm sitting at that desk, looking at those spreadsheets with my eyes or typing up those business cases with my fingers or coming up with bull**** emails with my brain. I have sold the use of myself from 9 am to 5.30 every week day.

Employment is selling yourself. There's nothing fundamentally different in doing that via Onlyfans or doing it via Accenture.

Only there is something fundamentally different between taking your clothes off for money and doing something constructive for money.

You're not learning anything getting your tits out for a living. You're in a room on your own taking your clothes off.

Overheal

SnuggyBear wrote: »

So bored of seeing women showing off their bodies. I'm numb to it all now. The amount of local girls I know who have onlyfans pages is crazy and I live in a small town.

And all the "hot singles in Clarecastle area waiting to meet you" too. Spoilt for choice

SnuggyBear

Snooker Ace wrote: »

How did you find them? I'm curious to know if any females I know have OF.

If they are showing a lot on instagram and the account is not private its a big sign they have onlyfans. I suppose you could pm them asking them they have a page.

I was told about certain girls having pages and it was just common knowledge around the town. There is a site called onlyfans finder you could look on there maybe.

jill_valentine

nullzero wrote: »

Are you suggesting that anyone who disagrees with you on this topic is potentially a white supremacist?

Not only was I not even remotely suggesting that, I couldn't even coherently be misinterpreted as suggesting that, and the fact two people agreed with your absolutely demented leap of logic rather sums up why women don't take boards seriously when it comes to stuff like this.

nullzero

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

:pac:

Do those people leave their brain at the computer for the day and head off with their body to the park is it?



the bolded bit - likewise

Wonderful counter argument.

Leg End Reject

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

Would you watch another persons daughter have sex on tv, in a movie, or online? most of us have - one way or another.

We have, but Only Fans seems to be attracting younger women in the belief they will all become wealthy. Very few will, the majority will have to seek alternative options.

Acting, whether in mainstream or porn media, is an actual career choice. Fiddling with yourself in your own bedroom isn't. I don't have an issue with sex work itself, just that many women are being sold a pup here.

Tacitus Kilgore

nullzero wrote: »

Only there is something fundamentally different between taking your clothes off for money and doing something constructive for money.

You're not learning anything getting your tits out for a living. You're in a room on your own taking your clothes off.

Whoa hold on, who said employment is constructive or that it provides learning?


The goalposts have been put on only fans for a tenner a month here.

Overheal

jill_valentine wrote: »

Not only was I not even remotely suggesting that, I couldn't even coherently be misinterpreted as suggesting that, and the fact two people agreed with your absolutely demented leap of logic rather sums up why women don't take boards seriously when it comes to stuff like this.

They have a habit of deliberate misinterpretation.

Tacitus Kilgore

nullzero wrote: »

Wonderful counter argument.

silenced you didn't it :pac:

nullzero

jill_valentine wrote: »

Not only was I not even remotely suggesting that, I couldn't even coherently be misinterpreted as suggesting that, and the fact two people agreed with your absolutely demented leap of logic rather sums up why women don't take boards seriously when it comes to stuff like this.

I have to apologise, I referenced a comment made in reply to your original post that made reference to "usual faces here" in relation to it which was posted by Tacitus Kilgore who I would like to pose that question to.

Leg End Reject

meeeeh wrote: »

No I would not. She is probably smarter than majority of boys and girls around her and I would want her to have exactly the same opportunities as boys who are not as smart as her. That will be totally fine with me.

She will have more opportunities, the biggest obstacle for many people is a lack of parental support, or a lack of value placed on education in the home.

Overheal

Snooker Ace wrote: »

Cheers. I'll check out onlyfans finder.

Is that a system that could put women at risk of being stalked in public etc?

nullzero

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

silenced you didn't it :pac:

That's what you're after isn't it? Silencing those who disagree with you.

Your argument that a person sitting at a computer is selling their body is preposterous, all the emojis and ridiculous anecdotes in the world can't save that argument.

SnuggyBear

joe40 wrote: »

I don't know about Tik tok or instagram, I have zero interaction with those platforms. In some ways though the overt sexualisation in mainstream media is less now in my opinion. In the 90s the lads mags were the whole rage prominantly displayed in shops for all to see, not just the people looking it up.

Take for example Game of Thrones great show I loved it, but in the early seasons virtually every lead female did a nude scene, and there was a lot of gratutious sex and nudity. I don't think that would happen nowadays, only 10 years later.

I'm not a prude, if you want to access porn go for it. Anything involving consenting adults is fine by me but I'm happy enough there is less on mainstream media.

Na lads mags were harmless compared to how it is now. Nowadays that girl in dunnes serving you could be selling her body online and thinking nothing of it.

Leg End Reject

Overheal wrote: »

Is that a system that could put women at risk of being stalked in public etc?

I'm sure it is, the same could be said for most social media really.

Vestiapx

Donald Trump wrote: »

While I would not like to see anyone feel that they are forced to do something that they don't want to do, or naively get dragged into something that could have later repercussions for them, I'll just point out that each and every person sells their body in some form or another. Whether you are out laying blocks or sitting in a chair behind a screen for 8 hours a day, you are using your body for something that you wouldn't do for free, in order to receive cash in return.

I don't .

nullzero

Overheal wrote: »

They have a habit of deliberate misinterpretation.

I replied to her stating that I made mistake and the question was intended for someone who commented on the original post.