faceh
1d ago
Well you specifically said it there. "Legal" consequences.
What other sorts of consequences might have regulated this particular aspect of the economy?
There's presumably some middle ground between "try to stamp it out entirely via force of law" and "suggesting that prostitution is a bad career choice for almost all women is a bannable offense."
faceh
1d ago
I mean, I can run you through the entire philosophical underpinnings of the Anglo Legal Tradition that explains the "harms" that, e.g. physically damaging a person's body, or removing funds they 'earned' without their permission, or demolishing objects that belong to them entail.
I did go to school for that after all.
But somehow I think you'd be nonplussed.
faceh
1d ago
Intent. If you mean to pay your electricity bill but by mistake send $200 to Mr. Random, do you expect Mr. Random to send you back the money or not?
But this is my point.
You send money to the wrong person, you are losing that money (at least, as represented by the database entry in your bank account) and thus getting it back is how you are made 'whole.'
You send a photo to the wrong recipient... you have not lost the photo.
There is no 'harm' in this case because there is no detriment to your interests and no cognizable 'right' that has been impugned.
This seems so basic and obvious to me that I'm REALLY curious as to how you can equate these two events in your mind.
And so it sounds like we're worried about something other than a child's consent being present or not.
And of course, you're seemingly expecting that the female side of the equation isn't going to be mature and wise enough to make good decisions here and thus is not blameworthy.
But you get young guys, who are similarly immature and unwise, and you expect them to behave with maximum propriety, and if they do not, then they should expect immediate and swift reprisal. I don't see why leniency due to inexperience and immaturity absolves one but not the other.
If we think kids engaging in uninhibited sexual activity is bad, and, in that vein, that sharing nudes is bad, I simply suggest that we are concerned for reasons orthogonal to 'consent' and should thus apply rules that restrict all the parties' behaviors, possibly for their own good, regardless of who did or did not agree.
Its a beautiful direct example of my point about the complete contrast in social response to males acting out inappropriately and females acting out inappropriately.
Male antisocial behavior: Beat them up, lock them up, keep them heavily policed.
Female antisocial behavior goes unremarked, often celebrated.
Multiply this out over dozens, hundreds of instances, over their entire childhood and young adulthood, and it explains quite a bit of what we're seeing now.
Do you have any thoughts on how you would regulate your daughter's behavior if she's acting in ways that harm her and others?
Any at all? Or is it just far easier to threaten other males with consequences whilst admitting you lack the ability to threaten her?
faceh
2d ago
Yeah its a pretty agreeable resolution to use short, sharp corporal punishment as a deterrent for antisocial behavior.
Good luck getting anyone to agree about what to do with your daughter if she were to start sending actual nudes around the school to a bunch of guys, though.
Bravado tends to fail, there.
faceh
2d ago
This is true, but unless the intention is to keep salvaging old hardware as the various components die, we're still ending up in the same place.
(My actual guess is that capacity WILL expand to meet demand, so this is probably a shortish term crunch)
faceh
2d ago
Funny enough, this is the second young woman I've known in the past two years who ended up with an (older) guy who was divorced with a kid, given that she happened to know him from her past (read: she had a crush on the guy when she was in high school). Post-selection indeed. There was quite a bit more to it than that, though.
The other one actually married the guy.
In the current case, the lady appears to be enough of an improvement on his ex-wife that there might be an intentional jealousy play going on (also, he still has wedding photos with his ex up on his Facebook).
faceh
2d ago
I mean, I personally might challenge you to a friendly kickboxing match.
But if you also had a couple thousand supporters who would donate to your gofundme to support your trolling efforts, would you really be dissuaded?
faceh
2d ago
And with sex IN PARTICULAR, there is no reasonable way to go back and assess whether it was validly given or not or whether the lines were crossed. I noticed this issue in law school. "Wait, how the f@&k do you establish evidence for lack of consent when it all happens behind closed doors?"
Unless you film the whole interaction and that opens up the whole can of worms that we're discussing.
faceh
2d ago
I'm gonna say its comparable to any other gig economy/gamified app. The basics are pretty cheap, but they rack up all kinds of extra charges where-ever possible, and milking the whales is the real profit center.
Basically, buying an OF is marking yourself as a possible sucker just by putting the basic money down, and the ecosystem is going to do its damnedest to drain your wallet.
I haven't availed myself of prostitutes, the standard strip club experience annoys me enough with the constant upsell even knowing that they can't actually promise the outcome you're hoping for.
faceh
2d ago
I don't think it is useless, but man, people do not seem to really know what they mean when they say "consent." Worse still, they don't really know what they mean when they say they "consent" to some activity.
Sex in particular, the emotional valence of the moment, and the intensity, can shift by the minute. Then, reassessed after the act, someone may decide that some particular part of it they 'agreed' to in the moment was actually a violation.
faceh
2d ago
According to whom?
Well, the amorphous cultural norms brought on by the sexual revolution, more to the point.
Abortion? On demand. Contraception? Everywhere. Marriage? Optional.
As the biological consequences for having sex with whomever you wanted were abolished, so too were the social consequences.
The leftists you hate so much?
I do not hate them, but I do not want to live amongst them.
And if people were better about choosing to live around people who genuinely shared their preferences and norms, much of the problems we're discussing in this particular case would evaporate.
I mean, the Muslims have solved it their way. Keep women covered up whenever they're in public. This "works" but, (as I'm sure you'd agree) this requires unacceptable restriction on female autonomy. If they only live among other Muslims, this tends to work "OKAY" (women stoned to death unavailable for comment).
We westerners have clearly NOT solved it in a way that is satisfactory, and we seem to make up the rules on the spot based on the relative status of the involved parties. I'm reminded of this every time I see a gym influencer post a video of some guy allegedly gawking at her body without her consent, and posting said video so that all the anonymous onlookers can... gawk at her body.
We CANNOT sustain a system where people are allowed to wear whatever they want without regard to its reception by onlookers, and the onlookers are only 'allowed' to enjoy the view if they're approved as acceptable by the wearer.
I don't want to live amongst people with such irreconcilable standards.
I think pretty clearly it's morally objectionable to generate AI porn of someone who is neither a sex worker nor someone who wants AI porn generated of them
What about making an unflattering caricature art of them? Or depicting them in (non-graphic) torture scenes? Or just change their skin tone to a different color on purpose? This all seems like we're treating nudity (or even just softcore titillation) as a special pleading.
At least, with kids, I think there's a sustainable moral argument for why we don't want people sexualizing them, and cast a suspicious eye at those who do.
And question I've asked before, what if you find someone who is a very close lookalike and have them pose for nude shots and post them, but never actually imply that was your goal? It was a common enough practice among pornographers back in the day.
It seems like this is basically suggesting norms of "look at whatever content I choose to post, but do not ever interact in any way I might find unpleasant."
Which runs extremely counter to how internet culture as a whole works.
Well I'm gonna have to drill down deeper as to your logic here, which I can accept as facially valid.
What is actually 'removed' when the image is published?
Similar with the secret, a breach of trust is a breach of trust, but unless you signed an NDA that expressly laid out how to calculate damages, then your remedy is "never trust that person again."
Vs. losing a kidney or having your money taken, where you can absolutely point to the thing that you lost and demand recompense for.
I would not be arguing this if we were talking about actual physical rape of a person, which is clearly a violation of a concept of 'bodily autonomy,' I think taking a photograph of someone/something is inherently less of a violation.
Publishing a photo is a step beyond, I can absolutely grant, but kind of as I alluded to before, the only actual dividing line I see between whether its a demeaning violation or not isn't in how the viewers receive and react to the image, but whether the original subject will get any money from its publication, not that they have lost something that was in their possession.
Like, consider a situation where a woman takes a nude photo, then fat fingers it and accidentally sends it to the wrong dude. Then, mortified, she demands that he delete it and excoriates him if he comments on it approvingly. Or comments on it at all.
Is HE in the wrong if he views and enjoys this image that wasn't intended for his consumption? Or is SHE in the wrong for sending unsolicited pornography to an unwitting recipient? Is he obligated to delete it? What's the difference? Once it has been sent, how is she harmed by it arriving to the wrong person?
Because I think if we take your express logic to any extreme, it also becomes objectionable to imagine someone naked, especially if you derive pleasure from it.
faceh
2d ago
Yeah, but she also wants to completely dodge the reputation that comes with trading her sexuality for money.
And of course, there's still often a guy in the picture actually arranging for her to sell this stuff. In this case, OF clearly profits far and above what all but their top-performing producers do. And its owned by a dude.
I'm not even denying that there's a fundamental transactional nature to all this stuff, even if you're in it for marriage and kids... its just that its now literally reduced to a commodity that gets haggled over, and people who 'have' to pay for it are viewed as losers, whilst anyone who is successful at getting attractive women to give it up without explicitly paying is either extremely crafty or is inherently high status.
Let me repeat that: sex is a commodity which can be purchased at various price points depending on the quality, so its not hard to acquire in the abstract, but being able to acquire it without spending money somehow makes you a God amongst men. Our old-school ape-wiring seems somewhat at odds with our later 'homo economicus' upgrades.
faceh
2d ago
which kid character was ugly?
Dustin is notable for having an actual deformity. Jonathan is contrasted to Steve as the creepy-looking awkward kid. And there's Derek.
Oh, and Barb, who isn't 'ugly' but could fairly be called 'Homely' and was, I'd say, designed to represent a particular archetype.
faceh
2d ago
There's a difference but I get confused about the secular reasons for why its meaningful.
Sex and nudity is supposedly no big deal, especially if you're attending a pride parade, but it absolutely IS a big deal when its someone's nudes hitting the internet, evidently. Shame, embarrassment, I dunno, it seems just taken as a given that it demeans the subject to be exposed in such a way. But if they publish those exact same images themselves, it is not demeaning?
There was a minor hullabaloo when I was in college involving 'Slutwalks' making it acceptable for women to wear skimpy clothes in public. And the "Free the Nipple" movement which, among other things, tried to make it acceptable for female nipples to appear on, e.g., instagram.
But then what I noticed is that almost no women (well, no attractive women) used this newfound power to actually go around in public topless or scantily clad, or post topless shots to IG. THEN came OF where they could monetize it and things REALLY got locked down.
So culturally we're told sex and nudity aren't a big deal, don't be prudes. But ECONOMICALLY, people (mostly males) spend billions upon billions of dollars to acquire sex and view nude women. So the only distinction I can really grasp is "am I getting paid for this or not." Which applies to many things, granted.
But where does that leave us?
faceh
2d ago
Well if GPU and Ram prices are any indication, we might get some de facto restrictions in that very few can afford a rig powerful enough to actually produce the images.
faceh
2d ago
While I get that, you can still find strip clubs if you're willing to leave the house (this might be the true motivation, the desire to never go out in public).
This is where my model of the goonbrain really fails.
If you're going to such absolute lengths to be 'certain' that the girl in question actually exists, surely its better to pay for in person companionship?
It doesn't parse, for me, how you can require a physical person actually exist for you to get off to the content, but NOT also inherently prefer that person be physically present. Which obviates the fear of it being faked, entirely.
Although I guess I can imagine a guy who is deathly afraid of getting arrested for soliciting a prostitute which drives him to avoid paying for sex.
In a world where social shame was still effective it'd be a pretty damning to do it and would probably result in ostracization. Not clear what one has to do to 'compensate' for the situation though.
Similar to being a peeping tom, or a subway groper or anything else that intrudes on people's strongest held social boundaries, even when the harm inflicted is de minimus.
But the problem is that shame would also kick in for stuff like a young girl hyping up her debut on Onlyfans once she turns 18 (link is mostly SFW but you'll see some thirst trapping). The puritanical ethics required here would condemn both the voyeuristic act and the exhibitionist act.
Its rather schizophrenic that there's basically unlimited tolerance for (adult) women to produce pornographic content of themselves, but shame is still heaped upon the consumers, as if these weren't both inseparably linked and necessary components of the "empowerment" equation here.
Like I said before, worst of all worlds.
Your logic suggests that you'd have no objection if a 13 year old girl published nudes with knowledge and consent.
Is that true?
Is consent the defining factor here?
I just want something on record.
The one that I like a lot is Canopy Theory, which suggested that earth was surrounded by a layer of water (vapor) which might have protected against harmful radiation and increased air pressure at the surface, which could have allowed some types of creatures to grow larger than 'normal' and might explain the giant bugs, extra plant life, even dinosaurs.
Then some large interference (a sufficiently large asteroid strike?) broke the equilibrium and the water came crashing down in a short period of time, eventually settling under the surface and in the ocean basins.
Its sometimes proffered as a way to explain how so many cultures in antiquity had flood myths arising around the same time. Which would be wild since that implies it wasn't that long ago on geological timescales.
Funny enough I believe that would sort of be a start.
But if she decides she wants to physically leave and, e.g. shack up with the first dude who will take her in, or convince someone to purchase her a new phone (maybe in exchange for favors, maybe not), or (most likely) just relegate her activities to solely when she's in school, what are your real options?
Is there ever a point where physically restraining/detaining her is appropriate?
More options
Context Copy link