3 ms·

If Playboy objectifies women (Playboy falls firmly in the category softporn) then I guess some people are really worried about websites like Xhamster, Pornhub,

by Fnoord 3y ago

If Playboy objectifies women (Playboy falls firmly in the category softporn) then I guess some people are really worried about websites like Xhamster, Pornhub, and Onlyfans. Playboy shows no intercourse (AFAIK, been a while), it contains stories and background info, and professional and entertaining poses. It falls firmly in the category of softporn. I know this is a Whataboutism 101, and you could say 'it is objectified woman in marginalized profession'. I'm not saying I disagree. What I am saying is that there must be a long road ahead. It seems the cat is out of the bag? Now, my daughter is in pre-puberty. Back when I was in puberty, I bought a Playboy or two and one Penthouse. Would I have an issue if my daughter bought a magazine with men (and/or women) posing (half-)naked if she were in puberty? I'd be surprised, given what you can find for free on the internet, with [much] worse curation. No, that seems normal to me, even healthy to be curious like that. But I am honestly scared shitless of all the crap which can be found on certain websites, as well as things happening in school like revenge porn (which recently became illegal within its own category in my country; a step I very much agree with). My point being that, to me, there seem to be much worse issues ahead worth tackling.

matsemann 3y ago
You're missing the point entirely. It's not that this image or porn is bad (or not), but that an image from a soft-porn magazine is used in a professional setting when you're not explicitly wanting to go down that road. What others do on their own is fine. But this image gives porn-connotations to people just wanting to do their job. It's equivalent to having a poster of a woman in the office bathroom. Have it in your own home, it's fine, but don't push it on others.
- Fnoord 3y ago
  It is cancel culture 101. I'm not for or against cancel culture, btw. I understand pros, but also cons. A poster of a woman, would depend on what that entails. If it is a poster with a function, with the face of a woman, it'd be OK. No matter the source. The source ought to be OK with it (with regards to copyright) but other than that, I don't find it relevant. Because people don't see the source; they see the derivative. As an analogy, would you run code by a convicted murderer? As in, would you be opposed to run code programmed by Hans Reiser? Ie. would you use Btrfs? Would you run code by a company who are morally bankrupt?
  - matsemann 3y ago
    No, it's not cancel culture. You're just making things up to fit your outrage. Your last whataboutisms aren't relevant. If people don't like having to work with an image whose origin is from a porn magazine and which the woman has asked people to stop using it, that's a perfectly valid feeling.
    - Fnoord 3y ago
      Oh it absolutely is cancel culture 101. It just that in this case the person isn't cancelled but society moral values have changed, and this is somehow an important hill to die on (I think not). Ie. there were 2 artists: the model and the person shooting the picture. If they're not fine with it they can pick an alternative. One was posted in this very thread. The woman in question and the author of the picture were also OK with it in past, right? Not like it was a case of copyright infringement? I'm sure there are also people who deeply care about not using programs written by a convicted criminal. Most people don't realize that when they use Linux because it is hidden in plain sight. Just like the fact that this photograph is from a pornography magazine, and that the woman in question was naked (softcore still), is obscure as well. Obscure in this context also means harmless. Ie. I can show this portrait picture of this woman to my pre-puberty daughter, and it'd be completely OK. Just like running Linux kernel with code by a convicted murderer is also OK. OK, as in harmless. My pre-puberty daughter is a great case of where I draw the line between NSFW, ie. with regards to recent terrorism in Russia and torture of suspects. Would I feel ashamed if she saw this picture of Lena? Not at all. If needed, I could tell her the context of it being a picture from a different time in our past with different society moral values (though they're still very much alive in some areas in the world). There is also a huge difference between hardcore intercourse and a (half-)naked, posing woman. And of the former, with women who are exploited, is much more rampant on the internet. That seems to be a valid hill to die on.
      - matsemann 3y ago
        > Obscure in this context also means harmless It's not obscure for the scientists working in this field, so what you deem moral or not for your teenager is irrelevant. Especially so when the scientists in this field have voiced their opinion which should count far more. Why should they not be heard? Why are you the one trying to cancel the opinions of these female scientists?
numpad0 3y ago
And that's where I say leaving HTTP 402 as a warning sign that the Internet should not be used for economically significant purposes was a grave mistake; those people ARE worried, and Internet censorship enforced through advertisement, credit card payment processing, and App Store reviewing process, driven by those people, is getting us barreling down that road towards 1984/BNW. Pornography aside, YouTube had effectively removed "die" from vocabulary in some languages through that, and people are adapting by changing accents. Soon it'll be a shibboleth. We're literally living 1984.

by Fnoord 3y ago

matsemann 3y ago

You're missing the point entirely. It's not that this image or porn is bad (or not), but that an image from a soft-porn magazine is used in a professional setting when you're not explicitly wanting to go down that road. What others do on their own is fine. But this image gives porn-connotations to people just wanting to do their job. It's equivalent to having a poster of a woman in the office bathroom. Have it in your own home, it's fine, but don't push it on others.

Fnoord 3y ago
It is cancel culture 101. I'm not for or against cancel culture, btw. I understand pros, but also cons. A poster of a woman, would depend on what that entails. If it is a poster with a function, with the face of a woman, it'd be OK. No matter the source. The source ought to be OK with it (with regards to copyright) but other than that, I don't find it relevant. Because people don't see the source; they see the derivative. As an analogy, would you run code by a convicted murderer? As in, would you be opposed to run code programmed by Hans Reiser? Ie. would you use Btrfs? Would you run code by a company who are morally bankrupt?
- matsemann 3y ago
  No, it's not cancel culture. You're just making things up to fit your outrage. Your last whataboutisms aren't relevant. If people don't like having to work with an image whose origin is from a porn magazine and which the woman has asked people to stop using it, that's a perfectly valid feeling.
  - Fnoord 3y ago
    Oh it absolutely is cancel culture 101. It just that in this case the person isn't cancelled but society moral values have changed, and this is somehow an important hill to die on (I think not). Ie. there were 2 artists: the model and the person shooting the picture. If they're not fine with it they can pick an alternative. One was posted in this very thread. The woman in question and the author of the picture were also OK with it in past, right? Not like it was a case of copyright infringement? I'm sure there are also people who deeply care about not using programs written by a convicted criminal. Most people don't realize that when they use Linux because it is hidden in plain sight. Just like the fact that this photograph is from a pornography magazine, and that the woman in question was naked (softcore still), is obscure as well. Obscure in this context also means harmless. Ie. I can show this portrait picture of this woman to my pre-puberty daughter, and it'd be completely OK. Just like running Linux kernel with code by a convicted murderer is also OK. OK, as in harmless. My pre-puberty daughter is a great case of where I draw the line between NSFW, ie. with regards to recent terrorism in Russia and torture of suspects. Would I feel ashamed if she saw this picture of Lena? Not at all. If needed, I could tell her the context of it being a picture from a different time in our past with different society moral values (though they're still very much alive in some areas in the world). There is also a huge difference between hardcore intercourse and a (half-)naked, posing woman. And of the former, with women who are exploited, is much more rampant on the internet. That seems to be a valid hill to die on.
    - matsemann 3y ago
      > Obscure in this context also means harmless It's not obscure for the scientists working in this field, so what you deem moral or not for your teenager is irrelevant. Especially so when the scientists in this field have voiced their opinion which should count far more. Why should they not be heard? Why are you the one trying to cancel the opinions of these female scientists?

numpad0 3y ago

And that's where I say leaving HTTP 402 as a warning sign that the Internet should not be used for economically significant purposes was a grave mistake; those people ARE worried, and Internet censorship enforced through advertisement, credit card payment processing, and App Store reviewing process, driven by those people, is getting us barreling down that road towards 1984/BNW. Pornography aside, YouTube had effectively removed "die" from vocabulary in some languages through that, and people are adapting by changing accents. Soon it'll be a shibboleth. We're literally living 1984.