gemmaem
1yr ago
Your first quote sounds like it is saying "children sometimes access porn and use it for sex education." I don't read it as saying that children should access porn and use it for sex education.
Your second quote is about "media literacy" in the context of teaching people who already have access to porn to be more critical of it.
gemmaem
1yr ago
To respond to your edits (which I think you ought to have marked as such, out of courtesy, given that I had already replied):
Does "unfortunately it's illegal because teachers and kids sharing porn would be a Powerful tool for social justice" count? Or "porn is good for kids, but only if it's Queer and Addresses Gender Inequities"?
Like, I just want you to acknowledge here that these "social justice in porn studies" academics only have a problem with kids being given porn if they think it's the wrong kind of cisnormative porn.
First of all, I would appreciate knowing what this quote is from. You've said nothing about where you found it, or who said it.
Second of all, it is still not clear to me that it is saying what you say it is saying. "Porn can be helpful in these ways and harmful in these other ways" is very far from an unqualified endorsement. The fact that the person who wrote this (whoever they are) reaches first for a social justice critique of porn is not actually evidence that they think porn is always good for children when it doesn't have those issues, or that children should be given it when they are not choosing to access it on their own.
In particular, I think there may be something important being said here:
This interrogation would not rule out explicit critiques of misogynistic, homophobic or racist tropes within pornography, but might also offer the capacity to open up critically productive conversations about the boundaries between adult sexual knowledge and young people’s sexual learning; and the ways popular and institutional discourses define particular forms of sexuality, sexual identity, and sex/gender expression as ‘legitimate’ (or ‘illegitimate’) know-ledge for young people.
It's not clear from your quote what "productive conversations" would consist of, but I can see two potentially sympathetic things being alluded to here. One of these -- from my second bolded section -- is the lack of access children might have to non-pornographic information about LGBTQ topics. Children sometimes turn to porn because they don't have alternate sources of information, and this can be particularly true when topics like homosexuality and trans identities are deemed off limits for them. Rather than castigating them for turning to porn for information in that situation, it might indeed be helpful to leave room for a productive conversation about what information they are looking for.
The second sympathetic thing that I might be detecting here -- although I would need more context to be sure -- is this reference to "the boundaries between adult sexual knowledge and young people’s sexual learning." I do wonder if this is trying to say that adult pornographic content is not necessarily a good source of sexual learning, and that it's useful to have a boundary here.
gemmaem
1yr ago
she explicitly criticizes dissuading kids from looking at porn in favor of teachers guiding them towards porn that advocates queer bloodplay and Progressive values
A CTRL-F for "blood" in that article you linked leads me to one instance, in a section whose heading is "Pornography as (adult) sex education." As in, for adults. So your summary is definitely inaccurate. I reiterate that this does not appear to be an example of someone advocating that we should show kids porn.
gemmaem
1yr ago
Okay, fine, I read it. I really am doing my best, here, to see what you are trying to refer to. I think the only statement that seems like it might be saying something of that nature is this one:
As Buckingham notes, contemporary ‘mainstream’ media literacy education ‘seeks to begin with ... students ... existing tastes and pleasures, rather than assuming that these are merely invalid or “ideological”’ (2008, 14). While sexuality education targeting adults (particularly same-sex-attracted men) currently takes this approach to pornography, education targeting heterosexual young people does not.
This then leads into the concluding paragraphs, which you quoted above, and which are suggesting directions for "[f]uture research (and practical inquiry) into pornography and/as sex education." I think the strongest interpretation I could make of this would be something like "maybe porn literacy classes for young people should start with (and accept) their existing porn tastes instead of trying to prescribe the correct ideological responses."
From what I can see, however, the article is not actually proposing that the rules around not being allowed to show porn to young people should be changed.
gemmaem
1yr ago
The Texas law saying that gender-affirming care can be investigated as child abuse would seem to be an even more direct mirror. Same issue, same threat to remove children from their parents.
gemmaem
1yr ago
Concealing material information from parents is pedagogical malpractice.
... If a child is confused about sex or sexuality, that is not the government's business to decide how to address that. By making it the government's business, Democrats are actively grooming children.
Don't be ridiculous. You're seriously trying to say that it's "grooming" if someone believes that a teacher doesn't have to tell a kid's homophobic parents that their kid is gay? You want to call keeping a secret from someone who will hurt their kid if they know the same as deliberately trying to make it easier for someone to sexually abuse a kid? That is absurd.
gemmaem
1yr ago
I was not intending to mislead. Inaccurate paraphrases by me are the result of genuine confusion on my part as to exactly whom you are attempting to accuse of knowingly aiding and abetting child abuse and for what. You said that it was "grooming children" for the government to be involved in choosing whether to tell homophobic parents about their child's sexuality in the same paragraph in which you referred to teachers as "government employees." As a result, I read you as accusing any teacher who chooses not to tell a child's homophobic parents that their child is gay of grooming children.
Your response suggests to me that this reading was not accurate. I am glad to hear this. Even by the standards of "groomer" discourse, that would be unusually absurd.
Now, since you've also asked me some direct questions, I'll answer them.
Do you think teachers who suspect parents of hitting children for receiving school discipline should conceal the administration of school discipline?
I don't think they should be required to conceal it, but I wouldn't outlaw such mercy.
Do you think teachers who suspect parents of requiring children to be vegan should be permitted to secretly provide the child with meat?
Happens all the time. Seriously, do you know how hard it is to get a slice of the vegetarian pizza when there's just one in the whole classroom and the meat-eating kids think nothing of taking a slice of it while you're still figuring out which one it is?
Now, deliberately trying to make the vegan kid eat meat, or going out of your way to provide it specifically, would indeed be anti-social behaviour. On the other hand, if the kid deliberately chooses to eat meat of their own accord and you don't tell their parents, well, that's less of an issue. I don't think teachers are required to rat kids out to their parents for every little thing the parents might not like.
gemmaem
1yr ago
Kudos on the self-awareness. What you're saying sounds pretty closely related to some discussions we've had on /r/theschism about visceral threat responses. I feel like responses of this type are a pretty crucial part of how a lot of Culture War fights get so hot.
Children and child-rearing can be pretty hot subjects even before you get trans issues involved. I've seen so many horrifying comment sections on parenting forums on what you would think would be minor topics that people could agree to disagree on: breastfeeding, sleep training, etc. Obviously the parents of babies are all pretty sleep deprived, so that doesn't help, but even so it's pretty incredible how worked up people get.
Most of my own hot button issues are feminism-related, whether it's about social acceptance for female ambition or social norms around turning down sexual advances. Being able to take a step backwards and say "I am having a threat response right now" can make a big difference in enduring tricky conversations, but I shouldn't get too overconfident about that. You never know when you'll let your guard down just as it's about to hit you right in the face.
gemmaem
1yr ago
You're not wrong that a clear double standard seems to be opening up around accusing posters on here of being "groomers." I feel like naraburns crossed a line when he wrote:
Do you honestly advocate for distributing such things to children? If so, you're a groomer, too...
This is a shaming tactic: "If you disagree with me on this issue then you are a knowing accessory to child abuse." It's unworthy of this forum, and it's an example of a style of rhetoric that would not be acceptable here if it was coming from someone on the left. It's completely reasonable for you to be angry about this, particularly since it is coming from a moderator. When you're in charge of maintaining the rules, you'd best try not to break them.
With that said, I think the way you're going about trying to call it out is unproductive. I know it's frustrating to have to pay attention to fine distinctions when your interlocutor is going out of their way to blur them in order to smear you. The thing is, though, if you're going to try to make a post in favour of better enforcement of the rules then you, too, are going to be subject to greater scrutiny in your own behaviour, just as moderators are. So you need to not accuse naraburns of saying things he didn't say. The things he did say are the things you need to be complaining about. He didn't directly accuse people who disagree with him of being pedophiles, he accused them of being groomers. That's bad enough.
Of course, you may not actually be trying to call for better rule enforcement, here. You seem to simply be blowing off steam. That's a shame, because I would like to call for naraburns to commit to not calling people names for disagreeing with him, and, unfortunately, your post risks overshadowing my point.
gemmaem
1yr ago
I'm not defending those responses. I agree that they were out of line, for the exact same reason that naraburns is out of line. And naraburns started it.
gemmaem
1yr ago
When I want to talk about racism, I'm not held to the standard you're asking me to hold naraburns to. I don't get to call people "racist" just because they meet my definition of racism. I have to be very, very careful about using the word at all, and avoid the more disputed definitions thereof. If I can't say it in a nicer way than that, then I just don't get to say it.
With that said, you have yourself provided a less inflammatory way to say it:
"Providing sexual material to children is preparing them for abuse, you're providing sexual material to children, therefore you are preparing children for abuse."
This refrains from using a disputed definition and is therefore much clearer in what it is saying. This makes it easier to respond to, because the assumptions are laid out and can be openly discussed. It's a much better comment, with much higher standards of expression.
gemmaem
1yr ago
I am not offering it as a defense! I do think it's important context, though, when evaluating why those rules were broken. It doesn't make it okay, but if I were moderating it would still modulate my response somewhat.
In particular, when I am moderating, if someone responds in an unacceptable way to a comment that was already over the line, I generally consider it important to acknowledge that context in my mod comment. In this case, PMMeClassicMemes is escalating the heat level pretty strongly, so I'd almost certainly still be handing them a ban, but the inciting comment would probably also come in for a warning.
Of course, I am not a moderator, here, and things get even harder when the inciting comment was made by a moderator. That's much trickier. I do not envy the mods; this is why you gotta stay in line!
gemmaem
1yr ago
Yeah, I never have posted any pictures of my chest, so I guess that means I'm also male :P
gemmaem
1yr ago
Those comments are pretty recent, and the earliest one is a very-obviously-telegraphed insincere joke. Even so, I would be surprised if the mods were to let it slide, honestly. If we hear from them that both sets of statements are acceptable, I'll concede your point.
gemmaem
1yr ago
You're twisting my words. Will you commit to not (pre-emptively or otherwise) calling posters "groomers" because they disagree with you about which materials are appropriate for which age groups?
gemmaem
1yr ago
Well, note below that I'm not trying to outlaw reasoned explanations of why a given act is abusive or likely to prepare someone to be abused. We can still discuss why porn is inappropriate for 5 year olds.
gemmaem
1yr ago
We certainly can discuss this. Do you need to call other posters "groomers" if they disagree with you about which aspects of gender theory are and are not appropriate for elementary school, in order to have that conversation? I don't see why you would. Even if you think the description is accurate and you want to convey that, you could just as easily say something like "Teaching this will make children more vulnerable to sexual abuse" or "Teaching this is abusive in itself, because [explanation]," without needing to call people names to make your point.
gemmaem
1yr ago
I am certainly against teachers making suggestions about their students' underwear, that is messed up and should not have happened.
gemmaem
1yr ago
I really, really like "purity spiral progressives" as a substitute for "woke." I must be one of the most prominent complainers around here about "woke" as a term, but, gosh, "purity spiral progressives" is just precise. It tells me exactly what you're referring to and why you think it's bad.
It probably helps that I also agree with you that purity spirals are both common and pernicious amongst people with views similar to mine. You say "woke" and I say "Well, okay, do you mean me or not?" You say "purity spiral" and I say "Oh, yes, big problem, yup, I can follow what you're complaining about."
I am less enthused by "trans recruiters." It's better than "groomers" by a long shot, and it shares the trait of telling me what you're concerned about (namely, I assume, causing people to be transgender who otherwise would be perfectly happy as they are). It's awkward in that nobody believes themselves to be "recruiting" transgender people, so you're describing your interpretation of their behaviour in terms that imply that it is their interpretation of their behaviour when it is not. I think it ends up being keyed more closely to your specific political beliefs, as a result. I can't know who is a "trans recruiter" without knowing which behaviours you think will have the effect of creating transgender people out of people who would have been otherwise happy. There are a wide range of views on that subject, so different people are going to use the word to refer to widely different sets of people.
Still, I appreciate your efforts to find more precise terminology.
gemmaem
1yr ago
I am really enjoying not knowing my own vote counts. As a rule, my comments here tend to be on negative points these days; it was not always thus but majority opinion has shifted well away from me here. I mostly shrug and accept that it will always be so, but I am glad I won't need to do that every time any more.
gemmaem
1yr ago
I think those are basically the rules I am calling for. Admittedly, I will still complain if you say "problem of grooming" and I think you are talking about something that isn't deliberately trying to make it easier to sexually abuse children, but I would not report such comments, I'd just argue back.
gemmaem
1yr ago
Is there some reason why you think he's not actually squeamish? I'm not familiar with him as a writer.
gemmaem
1yr ago
Brokeback Mountain is a tragic drama rather than a romantic comedy, so it's probably not the right movie to use as a comparison. Love, Simon is a romantic comedy, and seems to have done reasonably well. (I saw it myself, albeit not in theatres, and it was cute! I liked it). Maybe the fact that this was a gay romance wasn't actually particularly relevant to its success one way or the other.
Most of those stories are by adults and for adults. Tumblr's app is rated 17+. AO3 has a box to tick on explicit fanfiction that asks you to confirm that you are over 18. This doesn't prevent younger people from ticking the box, of course, but this is still not the same as deliberately showing porn to kids. Your argument amounts to saying that kids can access porn on the internet, therefore anyone who puts porn on the internet is "showing kids porn." That's a deeply specious mischaracterisation of what is actually going on.
More options
Context Copy link