Representation matters, even in fantasy. Just ask Disney, JK Rowling, right leaning “It’s ok to be white!” advocates and left leaning “More brown Mermaids!” progressives. Though they may disagree on who should get represented, all parties involved generally agree that representation seems to matter a whole lot. To say that it doesn’t, only in the realm of (generally) cis men, would seem to me like discriminating against men – not allowing them the same social courtesy/context for forgiveness as women and other groups.
Human beings on aggregate are dumb monkeys.
When human see media depicting dumb monkeys doing something, many humans are inclined to try doing same thing.
Slightly less ELI5 – groups that advocate for things like representation of minorities in media, typically argue that negative representations of ethnic minorities results in increased racism in the general public towards those minorities, as well as the internalisation of those negative stereotypes by minorities. If, for example, black people are only ever shown in media as being gangsters and drug dealers, more black people will lean into that sort of marginalized/negative ‘professions’, and non-black people will have an inherent bias against them due to the prevalence of the stereotype. If they’re shown images/media that shows black people in positions like doctors, lawyers, politicians, etc, then more black people will aspire to emulate those images / move into those fields, and other people will be more accepting/less prejudice against them in those positions. Similarly, if men are shown a ton of step-incest porn, or porn that depicts violence towards partners, they’re more inclined to do those things. Step-incest is generally a huge negative outside of the fantasy realm, as things like a step dad + step daughter is pretty damn close to rape in many situations. Sorta like landlord porn – these things are not ok, but they get normalised through porn and then re-enacted by dumb monkeys like that idiot Ohio mayor or the dude on the cruise line who sexually assaulted and killed his step sister.
The significance of representation in media is basically an established concept. Left-wing sorts want more diverse representation because it leads to more equitable perspectives in the broader community – Right-leaning sorts often argue against more diverse representation as it chips away at what they consider ‘social norms’. Neither side argues that representation doesn’t matter, but rather, about who should be represented.
To pretend like this sort of thing doesn’t also impact porn, and/or to say that men are just idiots if they emulate things they see in porn, is to go against the idea that media representation matters, and to turn a blind eye to the stats that show these things DO impact dumb monkey behaviours. And to ignore this aspect of media, just in the case of men’s sexual urges/porn, is to do so in a way that disadvantages just men, placing all accountability onto the individual man, absolving the system/norms that have facilitated those negative activities/actions. When black people in the 80s were depicted as stereotypes, it was part of what’s generally termed systemic racism, which fed into a cycle of black people embracing those stereotypical professions. We don’t tend to hold individuals solely accountable for issues stemming from systemic wrongs. So why would we put all the blame on men, in cases when they’ve been shown step-incest porn, for emulating the tropes they’ve been taught in step-incest porn?
Besides, porn writers have just been lazy as shit in over-using that trope. You’ve got sites just reshooting the same boring tired-ass scenes with different shitty actors going through the motions, and hitting pretty much all the same poses and dialogue check boxes. Demand better from your pornographers. Hell, if pornographers were to routinely show more realistic pickups / ways to meet women outside of just “I live with you because we’re sorta related, oops my dick slipped in!”, maybe there wouldn’t be so many incel boys who can’t figure out how to approach women.
Hard disagree. People are responsible for there actions. Not the media they consume. We live in the real world with a multitude of influences to teach us how to act right. Media is fantasy, you can derive inspiration from it but it’s not a guideline for behavior. Literally talking to a single individual woman should be sufficient to show a rational individual that pornography is not depicting real scenarios. Millions of people are watching this shit and there’s a handful who are a problem and is there actually even a direct link between their actions and having viewed this shit? People have been sexually assaulting their children and subordinates for as long as there have been people. Assholes are always going to be assholes.
So do you oppose DEI and representation of minorities in media then with the same gusto and ferver? Do you oppose all social programs that aim to correct systemic biases that negatively impact different demographic slices? Or on the flip side, do you think that snuff/torture films should be normalised, as they’re just ‘fantasy’ and any sane person should just ‘know’ that you shouldn’t do that sort of thing? “People’ve been dealing drugs forever, and they’re going to continue dealing drugs – it doesn’t matter if 99% of drug dealers depicted in media are black!”. It’s the same principle.
Why do you make an exception for this particular case? My guess would be that it applies more personally to you, and you find that uncomfortable, so you’re trying to defend your preferred dumb monkey content. But we’re all dumb monkeys, and we gotta look out for each other. Hell, the UK had a pretty big “wake the fuck up” moment with the series “Adolescence” about incel boys and being captured by manscape bullshit, which is in the same realm as what you’re seemingly pushing. If you recognise that the issues presented in adolescence reflect broader issues in the community, then you should realistically also accept that those ecosystems need to get regulated/changed systemically to try and resolve the problem: it isn’t up to the impressionable 16 year old kid to make sure he comes of age in a culture that provides a positive sexual environment, but rather it’s up to (presumably) adults/people like you to look out for that kids well being, and ensure he’s not being exposed to misleading tropes.
So do you oppose DEI and representation of minorities in media then with the same gusto and ferver?
No, people producing media can cast whoever they want. I just don’t think it has as much impact on the viewer as your statements implies. People may take inspiration from it but any rational individual understands that what they are consuming is not representing reality whether it’s positive or negative. You may think superman is cool and want to emulate his ideals to try to be a better person, but you’re not going to jump off the roof unless there’s something wrong with you.
Do you oppose all social programs that aim to correct systemic biases that negatively impact different demographic slices?
No, and this has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Or on the flip side, do you think that snuff/torture films should be normalised, as they’re just ‘fantasy’ and any sane person should just ‘know’ that you shouldn’t do that sort of thing?
It’s certainly not my thing but I don’t think they should be censored (assuming the content is fake, otherwise it’s already a crime and there’s already systems in place to deal with that). It is fantasy and you should know not to do that sort of thing. Again real life experience should be sufficient for a person to learn that hurting people is bad.
“People’ve been dealing drugs forever, and they’re going to continue dealing drugs – it doesn’t matter if 99% of drug dealers depicted in media are black!”. It’s the same principle.
I don’t know where you got this quote from. It’s certainly not something I said nor do I think that stat is accurate.
Why do you make an exception for this particular case? My guess would be that it applies more personally to you, and you find that uncomfortable, so you’re trying to defend your preferred dumb monkey content.
I’m not making any exceptions. My opinion on censorship is consistent for all types of media. If I don’t like something I don’t watch it. I don’t try to emulate everything I see in front of me.
My guess would be that it applies more personally to you, and you find that uncomfortable, so you’re trying to defend your preferred dumb monkey content. But we’re all dumb monkeys, and we gotta look out for each other.
I don’t give a shit about incest porn. It’s the same as most of the rest of it just with different labels on the characters. I’m not defending it. I’m arguing that your reasoning for being against it is bad. Because I’m not a monkey and I’m capable of critical thought.
Hell, the UK had a pretty big “wake the fuck up” moment with the series “Adolescence”
Never heard of it, and looking it up I don’t see any controversy surrounding it so not sure what you’re referring to here.
it isn’t up to the impressionable 16 year old kid to make sure he comes of age in a culture that provides a positive sexual environment, but rather it’s up to (presumably) adults/people like you to look out for that kids well being, and ensure he’s not being exposed to misleading tropes.
16 is certainly old enough to know right from wrong. That said I agree it’s up to adults to provide guidance to younger people. I disagree on the method. We are never going to be able to censor away every piece of objectionable content a kid may run across. What we can do is teach them moral values and to think critically about the differences between media they are consuming and reality. Doing so prepares them for whatever they may encounter and results in a more well rounded individual as a bonus.
Hell, the UK had a pretty big “wake the fuck up” moment with the series “Adolescence”
Never heard of it, and looking it up I don’t see any controversy surrounding it so not sure what you’re referring to here.
Considering this is a thread about a UK policy decision, you should likely familiarize yourself with other cultures approaches to things. I’m “guessing” you’re an American. If so, America’s not a great poster child to comment on any other nations approach to these sorts of topics, considering your government has basically pushed to dumb down and idiocracy-ify your population through their approach on these subjects. Adolescence was an award winning show, heavily featured on the BBC, and discussed broadly as it highlighted toxic masculinity and issues for young men. Even as a Canadian, who didn’t watch the show, I’m aware of it and its general themes/topics due to how much media attention it received. Maybe you’re just in a pro-America “Let them figure it out themself! MA FREEDOM TO FAP!!!” bubble.
Your comment about 16 year olds also smacks of American “She wasn’t a child, she was past puberty!” type reasoning.
So you’re resorting to insults instead of arguing any of my actual points and acting as if geography has anything to do with it. I think we’re done here.
I noted that other countries have different approaches, which are working much better in general (it seems) than America’s current disaster. You basically admitted to not being aware of other cultures or their approaches, so you admitted your own knowledge deficiency… but then acted like it was a winning point, which is a very American thing to do: “Well, I, as an AMERICAN, don’t know this so its WRONG!” (american exceptionalism is really really weird to see still on display these days). And your position generally aligns with the thinking that lead to America’s situation, aligns with the American right-wing sentiment of “let them figure it out themselves, no social supports or regulations! Freedom! Freedom to be techno fascists!!” (techno fapists?). That’s not an approach or thought process that others should adopt.
Your comments about 16 year olds being old enough, is quite explicitly the same argument made by the Pedophile rulers of America as to why it was ok to go to Epsteins island and fuck children. If you want to think of that as a personal attack against you, because I disagree that 16 year olds are old enough to be capable of fully understanding the influence media has on them (something most american adults don’t even comprehend – see fox news as an example), then, sure, I think you’re totally wrong, and your argument is absolute shit.
Representation matters, even in fantasy. Just ask Disney, JK Rowling, right leaning “It’s ok to be white!” advocates and left leaning “More brown Mermaids!” progressives. Though they may disagree on who should get represented, all parties involved generally agree that representation seems to matter a whole lot. To say that it doesn’t, only in the realm of (generally) cis men, would seem to me like discriminating against men – not allowing them the same social courtesy/context for forgiveness as women and other groups.
What the fuck are you talking about? What does this have to do with pornography?
Ok, an ELI5 for you since you seem to need it:
Human beings on aggregate are dumb monkeys. When human see media depicting dumb monkeys doing something, many humans are inclined to try doing same thing.
Slightly less ELI5 – groups that advocate for things like representation of minorities in media, typically argue that negative representations of ethnic minorities results in increased racism in the general public towards those minorities, as well as the internalisation of those negative stereotypes by minorities. If, for example, black people are only ever shown in media as being gangsters and drug dealers, more black people will lean into that sort of marginalized/negative ‘professions’, and non-black people will have an inherent bias against them due to the prevalence of the stereotype. If they’re shown images/media that shows black people in positions like doctors, lawyers, politicians, etc, then more black people will aspire to emulate those images / move into those fields, and other people will be more accepting/less prejudice against them in those positions. Similarly, if men are shown a ton of step-incest porn, or porn that depicts violence towards partners, they’re more inclined to do those things. Step-incest is generally a huge negative outside of the fantasy realm, as things like a step dad + step daughter is pretty damn close to rape in many situations. Sorta like landlord porn – these things are not ok, but they get normalised through porn and then re-enacted by dumb monkeys like that idiot Ohio mayor or the dude on the cruise line who sexually assaulted and killed his step sister.
The significance of representation in media is basically an established concept. Left-wing sorts want more diverse representation because it leads to more equitable perspectives in the broader community – Right-leaning sorts often argue against more diverse representation as it chips away at what they consider ‘social norms’. Neither side argues that representation doesn’t matter, but rather, about who should be represented.
To pretend like this sort of thing doesn’t also impact porn, and/or to say that men are just idiots if they emulate things they see in porn, is to go against the idea that media representation matters, and to turn a blind eye to the stats that show these things DO impact dumb monkey behaviours. And to ignore this aspect of media, just in the case of men’s sexual urges/porn, is to do so in a way that disadvantages just men, placing all accountability onto the individual man, absolving the system/norms that have facilitated those negative activities/actions. When black people in the 80s were depicted as stereotypes, it was part of what’s generally termed systemic racism, which fed into a cycle of black people embracing those stereotypical professions. We don’t tend to hold individuals solely accountable for issues stemming from systemic wrongs. So why would we put all the blame on men, in cases when they’ve been shown step-incest porn, for emulating the tropes they’ve been taught in step-incest porn?
Besides, porn writers have just been lazy as shit in over-using that trope. You’ve got sites just reshooting the same boring tired-ass scenes with different shitty actors going through the motions, and hitting pretty much all the same poses and dialogue check boxes. Demand better from your pornographers. Hell, if pornographers were to routinely show more realistic pickups / ways to meet women outside of just “I live with you because we’re sorta related, oops my dick slipped in!”, maybe there wouldn’t be so many incel boys who can’t figure out how to approach women.
Hard disagree. People are responsible for there actions. Not the media they consume. We live in the real world with a multitude of influences to teach us how to act right. Media is fantasy, you can derive inspiration from it but it’s not a guideline for behavior. Literally talking to a single individual woman should be sufficient to show a rational individual that pornography is not depicting real scenarios. Millions of people are watching this shit and there’s a handful who are a problem and is there actually even a direct link between their actions and having viewed this shit? People have been sexually assaulting their children and subordinates for as long as there have been people. Assholes are always going to be assholes.
So do you oppose DEI and representation of minorities in media then with the same gusto and ferver? Do you oppose all social programs that aim to correct systemic biases that negatively impact different demographic slices? Or on the flip side, do you think that snuff/torture films should be normalised, as they’re just ‘fantasy’ and any sane person should just ‘know’ that you shouldn’t do that sort of thing? “People’ve been dealing drugs forever, and they’re going to continue dealing drugs – it doesn’t matter if 99% of drug dealers depicted in media are black!”. It’s the same principle.
Why do you make an exception for this particular case? My guess would be that it applies more personally to you, and you find that uncomfortable, so you’re trying to defend your preferred dumb monkey content. But we’re all dumb monkeys, and we gotta look out for each other. Hell, the UK had a pretty big “wake the fuck up” moment with the series “Adolescence” about incel boys and being captured by manscape bullshit, which is in the same realm as what you’re seemingly pushing. If you recognise that the issues presented in adolescence reflect broader issues in the community, then you should realistically also accept that those ecosystems need to get regulated/changed systemically to try and resolve the problem: it isn’t up to the impressionable 16 year old kid to make sure he comes of age in a culture that provides a positive sexual environment, but rather it’s up to (presumably) adults/people like you to look out for that kids well being, and ensure he’s not being exposed to misleading tropes.
No, people producing media can cast whoever they want. I just don’t think it has as much impact on the viewer as your statements implies. People may take inspiration from it but any rational individual understands that what they are consuming is not representing reality whether it’s positive or negative. You may think superman is cool and want to emulate his ideals to try to be a better person, but you’re not going to jump off the roof unless there’s something wrong with you.
No, and this has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
It’s certainly not my thing but I don’t think they should be censored (assuming the content is fake, otherwise it’s already a crime and there’s already systems in place to deal with that). It is fantasy and you should know not to do that sort of thing. Again real life experience should be sufficient for a person to learn that hurting people is bad.
I don’t know where you got this quote from. It’s certainly not something I said nor do I think that stat is accurate.
I’m not making any exceptions. My opinion on censorship is consistent for all types of media. If I don’t like something I don’t watch it. I don’t try to emulate everything I see in front of me.
I don’t give a shit about incest porn. It’s the same as most of the rest of it just with different labels on the characters. I’m not defending it. I’m arguing that your reasoning for being against it is bad. Because I’m not a monkey and I’m capable of critical thought.
Never heard of it, and looking it up I don’t see any controversy surrounding it so not sure what you’re referring to here.
16 is certainly old enough to know right from wrong. That said I agree it’s up to adults to provide guidance to younger people. I disagree on the method. We are never going to be able to censor away every piece of objectionable content a kid may run across. What we can do is teach them moral values and to think critically about the differences between media they are consuming and reality. Doing so prepares them for whatever they may encounter and results in a more well rounded individual as a bonus.
Considering this is a thread about a UK policy decision, you should likely familiarize yourself with other cultures approaches to things. I’m “guessing” you’re an American. If so, America’s not a great poster child to comment on any other nations approach to these sorts of topics, considering your government has basically pushed to dumb down and idiocracy-ify your population through their approach on these subjects. Adolescence was an award winning show, heavily featured on the BBC, and discussed broadly as it highlighted toxic masculinity and issues for young men. Even as a Canadian, who didn’t watch the show, I’m aware of it and its general themes/topics due to how much media attention it received. Maybe you’re just in a pro-America “Let them figure it out themself! MA FREEDOM TO FAP!!!” bubble.
Your comment about 16 year olds also smacks of American “She wasn’t a child, she was past puberty!” type reasoning.
So you’re resorting to insults instead of arguing any of my actual points and acting as if geography has anything to do with it. I think we’re done here.
That’s a stretch.
I noted that other countries have different approaches, which are working much better in general (it seems) than America’s current disaster. You basically admitted to not being aware of other cultures or their approaches, so you admitted your own knowledge deficiency… but then acted like it was a winning point, which is a very American thing to do: “Well, I, as an AMERICAN, don’t know this so its WRONG!” (american exceptionalism is really really weird to see still on display these days). And your position generally aligns with the thinking that lead to America’s situation, aligns with the American right-wing sentiment of “let them figure it out themselves, no social supports or regulations! Freedom! Freedom to be techno fascists!!” (techno fapists?). That’s not an approach or thought process that others should adopt.
Your comments about 16 year olds being old enough, is quite explicitly the same argument made by the Pedophile rulers of America as to why it was ok to go to Epsteins island and fuck children. If you want to think of that as a personal attack against you, because I disagree that 16 year olds are old enough to be capable of fully understanding the influence media has on them (something most american adults don’t even comprehend – see fox news as an example), then, sure, I think you’re totally wrong, and your argument is absolute shit.