ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, the doctor is in
Casual student of continental philosophy and psychoanalysis. My views aren't real. I'm almost certainly on my lunch break.
User ID: 4030
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, the doctor is in
15hr ago
But if they publish those exact same images themselves, it is not demeaning?
Yes. Consent and agency are necessary considerations in plenty of moral decisions/outcomes, sexuality included. It seems intuitive to me that the proactive decision to publish sexual content is a vastly different experience than having someone do it under your nose. Money need not apply.
A few (admittedly imperfect) analogies involving consent to illustrate my point:
- A billionaire choosing to donate his fortune to a developing country vs. his funds being seized by a government and donated against his will.
- You choose to donate a kidney vs. the ambulance coming to your house and taking it from you.
- You choose to tell a secret to your friends vs. a loose-lipped confidant broadcasting it to the masses despite your wishes.
In all these cases, the former option is fine when done at one's own volition, but become a problem when another actor steps in. There are almost certainly philosophical papers that provide the premise-by-premise reasoning for this sort of argument, but hopefully you get the picture.
In a way, the body, particularly the sexualized body, is something of a possession. It can be given and taken away, shown and hidden. In some sense, it is a commodity that we have "ownership" of and many consider it the sacred domain of the individual. Sexual acts are high stakes, which is why it is so terrible when they are done against one's will and why it is considered a statement when someone takes bold public action with their body, for better or worse. You could argue that it is demeaning to publish sexual content under some sort of moralist (i.e. public sexuality is inherently debasing) or consequentialist (i.e. public sexuality leads to negative behavioral outcomes), but these arguments are complementary rather than overriding to ideas of agency and consent, in my opinion.
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, the doctor is in
19hr ago
Very strong comment. I work in healthcare, and your last paragraph is especially relevant and, at least anecdotally, accurate. Working with chronically mentally ill patients, I sometimes try and follow the paper trail to see how these services are getting paid for. Occasionally there is talk of Medicare or Medicaid when it comes to specific practices, but generally, no one bats an eye at giving a homeless man a full head CT. For the worst patients who need long term care, the eye-watering cost of a 6-month bed is rounded down to a zero because they simply cannot and could never pay. I respect individual doctors who want to do no harm, but systemically it's a baffling injustice that some folks go bankrupt trying to pay for things that are doled out like Halloween candy to the underclass under the pretense of the Hippocratic oath. I have some logistical concerns with single-payer, but it should be instituted for this reason alone: as you said, insurance doesn't work when more ships are sinking than should be.
Physicians can cry about it, they'll still be a well-paid and well respected profession even with a pay cut.
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, the doctor is in
19hr ago
Lots of great responses here. I think another overlooked factor is that the generation with the most time and zeal to organize right now, Gen Z, are politically idiosyncratic. They identify much less with mainstream partisan labels, which means the usual groundswell of membership in these groups has been cannibalized by increasingly smaller factions. A twentysomething social democrat isn't joining the Young Democrats, they're joining the DSA or going to a theory reading group. A twentysomething God-and-guns conservative isn't joining the Young Republicans, they're joining TPUSA or diving down the Yarvin pipeline. No one wants to join a big tent, especially when there exist countless enclaves of online spaces where you can be surrounded by exceptionally like-minded people at all times, assuring you of the veracity and righteousness of your exact ideas. What's the draw of the YR/YD in comparison?
Further, if people want to make change and become politicians themselves, I feel like local organizing isn't the place where that's done anymore. I'm not sure where exactly it is being done, but hydroacetylene's evaluation that these groups are more like social clubs sounds about right. They're vestigial.
Organization is just a tough thing in general. With time preferences getting shorter and the continued trend of Putnamian community decline, it doesn't surprise me that these websites are poorly maintained. WordPress power users aren't exactly abundant among the political striver crowd, either. I wonder if these groups have a secondary chat, like a Slack or Discord, where the "real" planning takes place. I'm reminded of my time in college when most clubs had some decrepit website but were thriving otherwise in another chat. Submitting to the Google Form might get you an invite there, where you can participate in earnest. Best of luck and props to you for trying to get involved.
The examples I provided are not 1:1 analogues to sexuality but moreso illustrations of consent in practice. I don't believe there needs to be specific recompense in these situations for the interference of an outside actor to affect consent. In the case of a secret, you're correct that the victim has little to do other than not trust the person again. I think that's tangential, though: the secret-spreader has still committed a violation of some sort. The release of sexual explicit photos is similar. All that can be done is have them taken down, but it would be hard to argue that some principle of consent/agency wasn't violated in spite of this lack of direct recourse.
Taking a photo of someone is less of a violation than rape, sure, but a lesser violation is still a violation. Petty theft is less of a violation than grand larceny, and they're both prosecuted.
I'm not sure I totally follow your point about money. If I'm restating you correctly, you're saying that modern ideas about the acceptability of these things hinge on whether or not the woman gets paid, not the reaction of the viewer. My response to that would be: who cares about what the viewer thinks? Money is a useful moral fiat that people bend their preferences for all the time: they're employed. If someone forced me to work, that would be loathsome, but I do it for money. It is "reasonable" that many women bend their sexuality in this way, even if I find it socially problematic. I don't think it's somehow hypocritical or irrational for money to play a role in moderating peoples moral preferences. There's decades of social psychology research to support that idea. I'm not sure what your ideal outcome in that scenario would be.
The situation you paint is a bit too specific for me to argue in detail but overall I would say: if the woman sends an image accidentally and requests it be removed, doing so is basic common courtesy and respects her right to privacy. Of course, there is no mechanism whereby the recipient is obligated to do so, but it seems straightforward to me that he should do it. Perhaps in an appeal to the social contract, perhaps in respect for her autonomy - I can't argue it in great depth right now but I think you understand my point. He shouldn't be shamed if he finds it attractive - that's arguably involuntary - but doing anything to further exacerbate the uncomfortable situation is clearly morally dubious.
Yes, it is objectionable in my view to imagine someone naked without their consent. It's not a tremendous violation because it has minimal social consequences and effectively doesn't exist unless it's talked about, so I would never consider legislating it or even shaming anyone for doing it on occasion. We are human and we fantasize. That said, if I heard that someone was imagining the women passing them on the street as naked all day, I'd think less of them - a mental gooner is still a gooner. It's a matter of degree.
More options
Context Copy link