Social media sexualization of western women

jill_valentine

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.

Jaysus, the goalposts have gone for a walk.

If employment was about learning something, it would be called school. There's no requirement, at all, to be employed in anything constructive or somehow self improving. Employment is about selling yourself for a few hours to pay bills, everything else - whether it's learning or stolen stationary - is a bonus.

Even in those terms, successful Onlyfansers have to put in quite a bit of work in terms of marketing, "branding", social media sense and money management. Members of, for example, South Dublin City Council aren't required to do any of that, and I can assure you they haven't learned anything or done anything constructive in a great many years.

SnuggyBear

Leg End Reject wrote: »

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

Yep, no one respects their privacy anymore. People are going to learn the hard way.

Overheal

Leg End Reject wrote: »

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

Abstractly, yes. I think this is a bit more direct and would be prone to more direct abuse.

nullzero

jill_valentine wrote: »

Jaysus, the goalposts have gone for a walk.

If employment was about learning something, it would be called school. There's no requirement, at all, to be employed in anything constructive or somehow self improving. Employment is about selling yourself for a few hours to pay bills, everything else - whether it's learning or stolen stationary - is a bonus.

Even in those terms, successful Onlyfansers have to put in quite a bit of work in terms of marketing, "branding", social media sense and money management. Members of, for example, South Dublin City Council aren't required to do any of that, and I can assure you they haven't learned anything or done anything constructive in a great many years.

Do you not believe that people learn things from their time in work?

Even at the lowest level, you learn about communication and dealing with other people.
Your life experience is mostly outside of an educational environment and you still learn a lot by being in the world.

Being in a room taking your clothes off is being in a room on your own doing nothing but taking off your clothes.

Leg End Reject

Overheal wrote: »

Abstractly, yes. I think this is a bit more direct and would be prone to more direct abuse.

And more prone to attract stalkers due to the sexualised nature.

I'm not sure younger women are aware of, or even consider, the potential downsides. We all made poor choices as late teens and young adults, mine were well before the advent of social media and I'm damn grateful for that.

Tacitus Kilgore

nullzero wrote: »

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.

They are though, whatever you do for work NO MATTER WHAT IT IS, if you are in employment - you are selling your body, no ifs no buts about it just facts.

Just because you consider one thing to have a higher status or whatever than another doesn't make the blindest bit of difference.


Nah, i just enjoyed the fact that your strong, robust 'non-preposterous' argument has fallen flat on its face.

And no, i dont think you're a white supremacist fwiw

BorneTobyWilde

Leg End Reject wrote: »

The content gets leaked to mainstream porn sites, so it's not contolled.

I'd hate if teenage pornographic content of me was still accessible at this stage of my life. Imagine going for an interview, being in contention and then the interview panel google you and sees clips of you masturbating and talking dirty to the camera, or having sex?

It certainly wouldn't empower me, and no, I'm not a prude or sexually repressed.

If others want to do it I hope they're fully aware of the potential for it to come back and haunt them. Maybe they won't care, and that's fair enough, but I'm sure some will live to regret it.

Luckily they didn't have iphones ,4k cameras and internet back in the 1920's when you were a teenager.

nullzero

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

They are though, whatever you do for work NO MATTER WHAT IT IS, if you are in employment - you are selling your body, no ifs no buts about it just facts.

Just because you consider one thing to have a higher status or whatever than another doesn't make the blindest bit of difference.


Nah, i just enjoyed the fact that your strong, robust 'non-preposterous' argument has fallen flat on its face.

And no, i dont think you're a white supremacist fwiw

So working in manual labour and sitting at a computer are the same thing then?

What people are really selling to their employers is their TIME.

Some people sell their physicality, others sell their skill or knowledge.

To suggest that all workers "sell their bodies" is complete waffle.

And as for the other issue, why did you reference users of this site in relation to white supremacy?

Overheal

Snooker Ace wrote: »

You can post nudes online or you can be concerned about your privacy. You cannot do both.

Farce.

Posting a nude online doesn't waive your right to privacy and is not an excuse for someone to stalk them in public - or worse.

SnuggyBear

Leg End Reject wrote: »

And more prone to attract stalkers due to the sexualised nature.

I'm not sure younger women are aware of, or even consider, the potential downsides. We all made poor choices as late teens and young adults, mine were well before the advent of social media and I'm damn grateful for that.

I wonder do the parents not teach them about being safe online at all. Someone needs to start teaching young people about the dangers of the Internet.

I remember when MySpace and social media started and I was thinking wtf people are putting their real names and pics online. It was crazy to me and I've never had a Facebook page or anything like that. Now you have girls online with their real names and showing off everything. It's madness.

nullzero

Overheal wrote: »

Farce.

Posting a nude online doesn't waive your right to privacy and is not an excuse for someone to stalk them in public - or worse.

Since when do stalkers (or worse) care about the morality of what they do?

KeepItLight

Snooker Ace wrote: »

You can worry about your privacy or you can post nudes. You cannot have it both ways.

You shouldn't really need to explain this.

Overheal

Snooker Ace wrote: »

You can worry about your privacy or you can post nudes. You cannot have it both ways.

Actually, you can. You can easily choose to share a nude while protecting your privacy in many other ways. You can post a nude without sharing your face, for example, or your home address, your blood type, your next of kin. Your dichotomy as presented is patently false.

Tacitus Kilgore

nullzero wrote: »

So working in manual labour and sitting at a computer are the same thing then?

What people are really selling to their employers is their TIME.

Some people sell their physicality, others sell their skill or knowledge.

To suggest that all workers "sell their bodies" is complete waffle.

And as for the other issue, why did you reference users of this site in relation to white supremacy?

The only waffle is above i'm afraid, you're wrong on this, get over it.


I don't know, why did I reference the regular users of CA/IMHO in relation to white supremacy?

nullzero

Overheal wrote: »

Actually, you can. You can easily choose to share a nude while protecting your privacy in many other ways. You can post a nude without sharing your face, for example, or your home address, your blood type, your next of kin. Your dichotomy as presented is patently false.

Since when can people in nude photographs only be identified sharing their home address, blood type (wtf?) or next of kin?

If you post nudes where your face is visible and someone you know sees them they aren't seeking verification of your blood type before the decide it's you.

jill_valentine

KeepItLight wrote: »

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.

I mean, I suppose you could argue the Romans, Babylonians and to some extent the Japanese considered sex work a kind of sacred vocation, but otherwise yes, if has been considered a job for most of history, which is why it's nicknamed "the oldest profession" and was commonly cited as "occupation" in census records for a very long time.

It wasn't necessarily considered a very nice job, to be sure, before we knew what we know now about stds etc, but neither was Plague Doctor or Gong Farmer.

Tacitus Kilgore

Snooker Ace wrote: »

I shouldn't but it seems I have to.

I also think Deepfakes will make OF obsolete very soon.

Deepfakes are going to make it impossible to tell the difference between truth and fiction - they're going to be some craic

bb1234567

bb1234567 wrote: »

It is completely okay if they feel comfortable . Those online platforms gave them an opportunity to 'sell their bodies' in a way that is completely on their terms, comfortable, safe and controlled. So it's not really comparable to prostitution. It's really not up to you. Young girls are being taught they have choice, that's the only thing we should be teaching them, not trying to hammer our our subjective opinion on matters into them before they are mature enought o make up their mind.

..

Can you not see the logical inconsistencies in your own argument? Parts in bold are contradictory at a fundamental level.

Leg End Reject

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Luckily they didn't have iphones ,4k cameras and internet back in the 1920's when you were a teenager.

Yeah, because the 1920s was the last decade without social media and the near compulsory recording of the minutiae of one's daily life.

nullzero

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

The only waffle is above i'm afraid, you're wrong on this, get over it.


I don't know, why did I reference the regular users of CA/IMHO in relation to white supremacy?

Again you try to shut down the discussion. Earlier on you assumed you had "silenced" me.

The notion that all workers are selling their bodies is nonsense. All workers sell their time, some spend that time doing physical work, others do work that involves no physical activity. The two are not the same.

Are people working from home over the last year or so, sitting in from of their computers without the need to be physically present in the workplace selling their bodies or their time to their employers?

They both get paid for their time. If you don't want to accept that I don't care.

I'm assuming you have some robust argument to make in relation to regular boards users in relation to white supremacy, although I'd probably prefer to see a sperate thread seeing that the evidence will be so weighty.

Tacitus Kilgore

nullzero wrote: »

Again you try to shut down the discussion. Earlier on you assumed you had "silenced" me.

The notion that all workers are selling their bodies is nonsense. All workers sell their time, some spend that time doing physical work, others do work that involves no physical activity. The two are not the same.

They both get paid for their time. If you don't want to accept that I don't care.

I'm assuming you have some robust argument to make in relation to regular boards users in relation to white supremacy, although I'd probably prefer to see a sperate thread seeing that the evidence will be so weighty.

Yes, I silenced you, I censored you, I deprived you of the ability to respond, get rid of the victim complex ffs you lost an anonymous argument on an internet forum for christ sake.


You really wanna die on that hill don't you? Employment is selling your body, you can call it time, or brain power or whatever you want but no matter how you want to dress it up that's a fact that you cannot argue, hell I'm sure there are others here who can explain it in many other better ways than I, I have ran out though, and it's home time.


Oh yeah, I have a whole dissertation done on it here, see you on thread :pac:

jill_valentine

nullzero wrote: »

Do you not believe that people learn things from their time in work?

Even at the lowest level, you learn about communication and dealing with other people.
Your life experience is mostly outside of an educational environment and you still learn a lot by being in the world.

Being in a room taking your clothes off is being in a room on your own doing nothing but taking off your clothes.

It makes no difference. Its not the point of work. My employer doesn't give a rats what I learn or don't beyond what makes me more immediately useful to them for less money. If I get more out of it than that, it's irrelevant. If I have happen to like the view from my desk or if I enjoy the work, that's neither here nor there either in the abstract sense - the contract is, they buy me for eight hours and then afterwards I clock out and go where I actually want to go and do what I actually want to do instead.

You mention communication, which is ironic - OnlyFansers have to rely on their social media communication entirely to market themselves. It's not as simple as taking off clothes in a room, again, the only way they make any money at all is building a presence and a rapport with subscribers. You may not consider those skills valuable, but they are skills in exactly the same way as composing a particularly efficient Excel formula. I don't consider an overhead volley an especially valuable skill in the grander scheme of things, but they're not easy either and people get paid plenty for being able to do those.

Employment is a transactional arrangement, not a moral one. You pay me to be here so you can use me to get x done. Nobody's sitting on a factory production line to better themselves, should we be decrying that as some proof of wider degeneracy too?

nullzero

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

Yes, I silenced you, I censored you, I deprived you of the ability to respond, get rid of the victim complex ffs you lost an anonymous argument on an internet forum for christ sake.


You really wanna die on that hill don't you? Employment is selling your body, you can call it time, or brain power or whatever you want but no matter how you want to dress it up that's a fact that you cannot argue, hell I'm sure there are others here who can explain it in many other better ways than I, I have ran out though, and it's home time.


Oh yeah, I have a whole dissertation done on it here, see you on thread :pac:

I can agree that someone doing physical work is selling their body.

Someone sitting in their home in front of a computer is not.

We all get paid for our time, we don't all sell our bodies.

As for the grandstanding about having lost an argument on a forum. You're the one using the word "silenced", you're the one declaring victory and you think you have the moral high ground here?

If anything a reasonable middle ground would be to say that everyone sells their time whilst some sell their bodies on a sliding scale.

You're not interested in compromise, again your on your high horse about me wanting to die on this hill. You're engaged as much as me, stop the moral grandstanding and take ownership of your own behaviour.

mohawk

jill_valentine wrote: »

Just to clarify, is the problem here that teenagers are too sexualised or that they're not having sex early enough

I don’t think people that research these things know for sure what exactly is going on. I personally don’t think it’s an issue for teenagers to wait to have sex. However, I do believe that teenagers first impressions of sex are increasingly from pornographic sources. And porn appears to be increasingly violent and degrading towards women.

I just found it interesting that you could expect that due to the hyper-sexualised society it would lead to teenagers having sex earlier, but the opposite has happened.

Overheal

Snooker Ace wrote: »

Any girl on OF should consider stalking and invasion of privacy as an occupational hazard.

That's a sickening attitude to have and makes me worry about your ambitions, the way you've presented it.

jill_valentine

mohawk wrote: »

I don’t think people that research these things know for sure what exactly is going on. I personally don’t think it’s an issue for teenagers to wait to have sex. However, I do believe that teenagers first impressions of sex are increasingly from pornographic sources. And porn appears to be increasingly violent and degrading towards women.

I just found it interesting that you could expect that due to the hyper-sexualised society it would lead to teenagers having sex earlier, but the opposite has happened.

I do think that's very interesting, and my post probably came off as sarkier than deserved, (and I do think there are issues with the tonal trajectory of porn, but that's a discussion for another board tbh.)

TanookiMario

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Or maybe you should realise that women are able to make their own decisions and don't need you to teach them what they should think based on what you think?

Maybe. Are they being made aware of the risks?

I have no problem with someone using social media to get donations to make money.

However, I would question in the realm of pornography what the long and short term benefits and risks might be.

Its one thing to hold the opinion that people shouldn't be told what to do. It's another to let people potentially ruin their lives when we could easily tell them to stop.

Its a more complicated issue that that.

I'm not 100% sure I'd be on team "let people learn from their mistakes". Happy for society to try and discourage people from smoking or drinking or gambling. So why not consider if some other things could do damage?

nullzero

jill_valentine wrote: »

It makes no difference. Its not the point of work. My employer doesn't give a rats what I learn or don't beyond what makes me more immediately useful to them for less money. If I get more out of it than that, it's irrelevant. If I have happen to like the view from my desk or if I enjoy the work, that's neither here nor there either in the abstract sense - the contract is, they buy me for eight hours and then afterwards I clock out and go where I actually want to go and do what I actually want to do instead.

You mention communication, which is ironic - OnlyFansers have to rely on their social media communication entirely to market themselves. It's not as simple as taking off clothes in a room, again, the only way they make any money at all is building a presence and a rapport with subscribers. You may not consider those skills valuable, but they are skills in exactly the same way as composing a particularly efficient Excel formula. I don't consider an overhead volley an especially valuable skill in the grander scheme of things, but they're not easy either and people get paid plenty for being able to do those.

Employment is a transactional arrangement, not a moral one. You pay me to be here so you can use me to get x done. Nobody's sitting on a factory production line to better themselves.

That's not the point is was making.

The employer pays you for your time doing what they need you to do. You can gain experience of all manner of things depending on what you do for a living that was not intended by your employer, you make friends, you interact with people and have the potential to grow as a person.

The notion that somebody actively engaged with real people doing useful things is the same as arranging your social media presence to ensure you sell more pictures of your naked body whilst sitting in a room on your own are both offering a rich life experience isn't reasonable.

EddieN75

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Or maybe you should realise that women are able to make their own decisions and don't need you to teach them what they should think based on what you think?

On one hand you have women saying respect us and don't sexualise us like cat calling or creepy behaviour while on the other women are getting their bits out for a euro.

Can't have it both ways. If you don't respect yourselves don't expect strangers to either

Overheal

Snooker Ace wrote: »

Why? They should view it as an occupational hazard. Same way a man choosing to work on an oil rig should consider being burned or crushed by machinery an occupational hazard.

Would you say

"You can care about safety or you can work on an oil rig, you can't do both."

As safety is a critical practice in that industry? Does the safety officer on the rig not care about it?