#134

uploaded by one of those people without the knowledge of the other in, I’d estimate, about 95% of cases

#135

I got two happy people and a smartphone. Where it’s at!

2 Likes
#136

Seems like a strange personal attack when he’s made pretty reasonable points, maybe cause I know EMO IRL IDK

3 Likes
#137

That’s a crazy figure you’ve pulled from your arse*

*Now a banned act

2 Likes
#138

And I’d be worried about other kinds of coercive control in the other 5%

#139

Probably because people have been unnecessarily hard on her on this thread, despite expressing something perfectly reasonable. Different opinion to the hivemind =/= trolling u guys

1 Like
#140

well even if it was 30%, which seems ridiculously optimistic to me, that would be pretty awful given the sheer volume of content (act now banned).

#141

I don’t understand that point. If the people involved aren’t making money and doing it for fun it’s till a problem because the site they upload to is making money from it? What about a site like flikr that isn’t exclusively for/aimed it nude pics?

Is it anyone using their naked body to make money that’s the issue? If so why? Is posing as a life model acceptable but posing for top shelf mags not?

(this is all a bit steam of conciseness and not an attack, just trying to grasp the angle)

#142

Now a banned act.

#143

:smiley: I so nearly said that myself

#144

Yeah there’s been a bit of an unecessary pile-on. But I also think there seems to be two different debates going on. Like Casseroles (correct me if I’m wrong) seems to be railing against the porn industry at large, which is a different, long argument for a different time. I would argue that this ruling has nothing to do with the porn industry and the way it’s run, nothing to do with protecting performers, and is instead about defining a ‘normal’ and demonising and estranging people whose behaviours fall outside of this

7 Likes
#146

That logic didn’t save sheeeeit!

#147

I just think you’re not necessarily wrong in your opinion, but it wilfully ignores a lot of things out there, as well as not really being relevant to this specific act of censorship.

You’re right though, I was being a bit dismissive because I very much did think you were trolling, plus I wrote that post at god knows o’clock after several drinks. Also I feel like you’re attacking, shaming and being a bit ignorant towards an industry in which I have been part of and have a lot of friends and connections, who are wonderful people who are constantly stigmatised. Sorry if I got a little defensive :rolling_eyes:

2 Likes
#148

Well, you can prove anything with (totally made up) statistics.

4 Likes
#149

oh quel surprise!

#150

It shouldn’t be a surprised, I talked about my wine consumption in the drinking thread.

#151

SURPRISE! FFS, SEAN!

#152

this objectification of Smee really isn’t on

1 Like
#153

Lots of good points here:

#154

Sorry if I got defensive. And I see you’re probably friends with people who do what they do in a really conscious way and are the ideal of how things should be but that might blind you to the masses of people dont consume porn in a conscious way and how this affects their attitude to sex and sexual partners.

I was going to say that Id like to think people like your friends would be able to get some sort equitable relief from the clause in the bill and that they might accept feeling criminalised for a short time as part of the fight against inequality but maybe they won’t and maybe they shouldn’t.

Also I think you probably sensed that behind my opinion is a belief that watching people pretending to enjoy sex for money (and I get that not everyone in the industry is doing that) is spiritually corrupt and I know most people will think that’s nonsense so maybe I’ll just shut up now.