8 ms·
Porn site xHamster blocks North Carolina users to protest anti-LGBT law
- liquidzoot 11y agoYou say that like it's a bad thing.
- chirau 11y agoDo you mean the law or the porn?
- liquidzoot 11y agoI mean the porn. It seems like a non sequitur to withhold something ideologically compatible and inessential, plus the notion of pornographers fighting for equality is a joke.
- ethanbond 11y agoWhy is the notion of pornographers fighting for equality a joke? XHamster seems to have a pretty progressive corporate view towards sexuality. Obviously not all the content on the site is that way, but you seem to be implying pornography is inherently bad? Besides, you're naive if you think the Republican lawmakers who push this type of legislation are actually so wholesome that this is totally irrelevant.
- liquidzoot 11y agoI'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 their business.
- coldpie 11y ago> 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.
- falcolas 11y agoPersonally, 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.
- liquidzoot 11y agoI 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.
- vox_mollis 11y agoI'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.
- liquidzoot 11y agoPornography 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.
- idiocracy2016 11y agoSexual exploiters fight for "equality" to sexual exploit just like the local bank robber fights for a no-guns-allowed policy among the bank staff.
- jmcgough 11y agoPornography doesn't innately require sexual exploitation.
- liquidzoot 11y agoMoney is a coercive agent in any situation, and coerced sex acts are rape.
- jmcgough 11y agoNon-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.
- liquidzoot 11y agoYes, and like I said, money makes the consent given questionable at best. Threats of violence can also be used to negate consent. Social pressure applies as well. These factors do not disappear in so called amateur pornography.
- vectorpush 11y agoDo you view prostitution as rape?
- mc32 11y agoI 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. And it can lead some to objectifying people.
- ethanbond 11y agoYes, 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.
- mc32 11y agoIf it didn't, advertising would not work. I take that it works because companies spend billions trying to persuade people and do via advertising.
- fizzbatter 11y agoI think the porn jabs at the hypocrisy of it all. Most of these anti-gay groups love to throw stones from their insanely tall horses. They pick and choose from the buffet of sins, and ignore the rest. Porn is likely something they publicly are against, but i would be honestly impressed if it's something they (in their private homes) are against. Hell, most of these people can't even stomach "Love thy neighbor". Let alone sins of the flesh.
- Cthulhu_ 11y ago> plus the notion of pornographers fighting for equality is a joke. Do explain. Are you saying the porn industry pushes a certain ideology (e.g. only anonymous-male-on-model sex!1)? I'm pretty sure the porn industry is purely a capitalistic endeavour, as in, whatever sells - and non-traditional (if that's the right term to use) porn happens to sell.
- idiocracy2016 11y agoThat's what I thought! The local gang said they'd stop robbing and murdering people to boycott my safe streets policy. What do they expect me to say? "Oh.. no, don't, uh, stop trying to sell drugs to my kids..."
- ocdtrekkie 11y agoWouldn't the better stab at NC be to just offer LGBT porn in the state?
- andrewclunn 11y agoWould restricting people to lesbian porn even be considered a boycott?
- scrabble 11y agoI can't see this having a big impact on law makers. Is porn in limited supply now?
- dave5104 11y agoIt seems to be aimed more at pushing constituents into action than law makers.
- scrabble 11y agoAre xHamster users going to be contacting their reps to complain that they can no longer access it? That's another situation that seems unlikely to me.
- bitJericho 11y agoMaybe not but the lawmakers will notice it.
- Caprinicus 11y agoIf anyone is using xhamster it's lawmakers
- justinpombrio 11y agoNo, they're going to contact their reps to complain about the anti-lgbt law that they're suddenly aware of.
- sghodas 11y agoYou're still missing the point. Users who know little to nothing about the law NC passed will be made aware of the issue. Some of those people will take action against the lawmakers and/or people that support the law. Overall awareness of the issue will rise and hopefully cause a real discussion.
- nsxwolf 11y agoNo. They'll switch to YouPorn and the others that will be happy to have xHamster's clicks. And if they all follow xHamster's lead, they'll learn how to use VPNs. Then the whole thing will burn itself out from outrage fatigue and be dropped.
- return0 11y agoWould be more fun if xhamster required a certificate of sexual orientation before allowing you to switch to straight or gay porn.
- ElComradio 11y agoWhat 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.
- ceejayoz 11y agoThe standard should be "who gives a fuck what's in the pants of the person in the next stall?"
- juraj24 11y agoMost people do. Bsic decency should be maintained in human society.
- ceejayoz 11y agoIf you're seeing enough of a transgender person in the bathroom to be able to determine if they're pre-op or post-op, chances are you're the one violating "basic decency" by being a creeper.
- venomsnake 11y agoThen lets create unigender bathrooms and be done with it.
- eveningcoffee 11y agoI would also like to think like this but it is more complex issue. I see that there are at least 3 aspects: physiological comfort, hygiene and security. I think that your proposal falls into physiological comfort category but I am afraid that changing personal attitude does not change the other two aspects. So I would assume that women are a little better off with separate toilets in the given state of the society. Would be interesting to see any research that tries to answer these questions.
- CiPHPerCoder 11y agoHere's a simple idea that would render these "bathroom bills" null and void. Neuter them, if you will. Stop building multi-occupant public restrooms with a gender designation, and instead build several single-occupant public restrooms with no gender designation. Added bonus: Not only do we disarm these attempts to discriminate against transgendered people, we also avoid all the social awkwardness that comes from multi-occupant restrooms. Like the loud person talking on their cell phone. Or the smells of other people doing their thing. (Retrofitting would be expensive, but don't make that part mandatory.)
- jobigoud 11y agoWe had single-person restrooms at my previous work, shared by multiple companies. In one building they were gender neutral. As far as I can see, everyone was fine with it. Then we moved to another building where the bathrooms had gender pictograms on them although they were identical in every other respect. Some males eventually went to the female-stamped bathroom when the other was occupied. And someone attached a note in the female bathroom to remind everyone that this was a female-only bathroom…
- carsongross 11y agoThe lack of self-awareness is pretty funny. Setting aside moral judgements, consider: a state passes a law based on traditional religious morality, and a company that violates traditional religious morality then refuses to do business in it as "punishment". At some level, I guess it's good. The Big Sort continues apace.
- verandaguy 11y agoIt may seem like a lack of self-awareness at first, but I'm almost sure this is because NC is one of the states where lesbian porn is among the top searches, according to PornHub's annual map[0]. So really, it's more just xHamster trying to cut down on hypocrisy. [0]: https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/rolfkdrqf5pg21auxwsh.png?w=560&h=414 https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/rolfkdrqf5pg2...
- fizzbatter 11y agoExactly. Not that it would work, but if you could manage to cut out all porn from NC, it would serve as both a protest against them while also making them suffer in silence. Afterall, i doubt most of these conservative anti-gay groups believe porn is okay - it's an immoral sin, just as being gay is. As i disclaimed, it's a big if, an impossible if. As much as i'd love to see these people suffer in this uniquely funny way, prohibition never works.
- mc32 11y agoI see their point, or stance as "protest" but I can't see how this does anything than make those people who saw it fit to pass those laws pleased with the developments. Those lawmakers will now hope people who run prostitution rings join the protest. Maybe even the bootleggers and... On the other hand the hamster gets nice publicity out of it, so on balance its probably a net positive for them.
- chriswarbo 11y agoFirst they came for the LGBT community, but I did not speak out because I was not LGBT. Then they came for the pornography, and there was a mass uprising.
- lbaskin 11y agoAssuming this is a positive development, I wonder where else xHamster is also blocking access - what about large parts of the Middle East and Africa?
- shas3 11y agoShouldn't we all hold US to higher standards than MENA, etc.?
- dudul 11y agoBecause...?
- abiox 11y agoif nothing else, the US tends to have fewer existential concerns diverting it's attention (economics, infrastructure, etc).
- dudul 11y agoSeriously? I'll give you Africa of course, it makes sense. But the Middle East? Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc? All these countries are almost literally wiping their ass with money. My question got downvoted a lot, but I was quite serious. Why would the US be upheld to "higher standards" (whatever it means)? Are we supposed to believe in some form of American exceptionalism? And are we just talking about Africa or should the US have higher standards than, say, India, Australia, Italy and Argentina? I just wanted to understand the parent comment.
- abiox 11y ago> Why would the US be upheld to "higher standards" (whatever it means)? Are we supposed to believe in some form of American exceptionalism? here's an example: i think most people would agree that every country should have a strong, maintained infrastructure to support their country's operations. but it is clearly a different situation for an economically challenged country to have bridges in disrepair, than for a rich country to have the same issue despite it having the resources available to it. "higher standards" doesn't necessarily mean "superior". that said, i'm not completely clear on what the post you replied to was expressing. if i were to guess, it was about so-called "social progress". north america/europe generally provides a better opportunity for LGBT peoples to live their lives as they see fit than other regions. MENA (such as Saudi[1] and Qatar[2]) have traditionally been seen as decidedly unwelcoming to LGBT, perhaps even supporting violence against LGBT, but this isn't exactly unique to MENA. MENA's disinterest/lack of "progress" in this area is rooted in cultural, historical and religious norms. as such, it's perhaps "unfair" to hold them to the same standards (achieving "higher progress") of how they treat LGBT people. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Qatar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Qatar
- idiocracy2016 11y agoWhat's next, whores say they wont provide prostitution to a state that bans prostitution? "You can't fire me, I quit!"
- abiox 11y agoseems like a faulty comparison.
- wnevets 11y agoaccording to reddit, its not actually blocking users. It displays a popup that can be dismissed.
- cristianpascu 11y agoSo 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 ignore physical gender. If that will ever happen. My concern is two fold. One, for transgender persons, who will fear the reaction they will get every time they enter the restroom. And second, basically any person can claim to be of the opposite gender, and walk in to fulfill a sexual fantasy, even a mild one. I simply don't understand what is the huge effort in using the restroom appropriate to your physical gender, and simply avoid the psychological conflict with the rest of the population. Especially considering the high rates of mental illness and suicidal thoughts and attempts among transgender persons. This, for now, will only add to that. Do they really need to be subjects in a future study that will show the impact of such laws? Or used as ammunition for 'transphobia' accusations in the media or elsewhere? Will the victims of the first line in the war of imposing a policy in the society be really worth it, especially if that increases their chances of committing suicide?
- libeclipse 11y agoI concur.
- coldpie 11y ago> I simply don't understand what is the huge effort in using the restroom appropriate to your physical gender, and simply avoid the psychological conflict with the rest of the population. I suspect you haven't really been paying attention and are just submitting your gut feeling here. For example, in attempting to prevent your hypothetical "sexual fantasy" scenario, here's one real consequence of this law: https://twitter.com/JayShef/status/712845760287494144 https://twitter.com/JayShef/status/712845760287494144 The simple fact is any real problems caused in bathrooms are already covered by harassment laws. These new laws take away a freedom people already had, and I'm not really aware of any real problems caused by people having those freedoms. Are you? What problems have these laws solved? Hypothetical situations don't count.
- tryitnow 11y agoI applaud their commitment to a good cause, but this seems kind of like a double victory for the moralizers who passed this law.