Children as young as 11 who demonstrate misogynistic behaviour will be taught the difference between pornography and real relationships, as part of a multimillion-pound investment to tackle misogyny in England’s schools, the Guardian understands.
On the eve of the government publishing its long-awaited strategy to halve violence against women and girls (VAWG) in a decade, David Lammy told the Guardian that the battle “begins with how we raise our boys”, adding that toxic masculinity and keeping girls and women safe were “bound together”.
As part of the government’s flagship strategy, which was initially expected in the spring, teachers will be able to send young people at risk of causing harm on behavioural courses, and will be trained to intervene if they witness disturbing or worrying behaviour.
Hate to say it, but this reminds me of that Monty python Meaning of Life sketch about the John Cleese teaching bored kids about sex
I think the problem is not just porn… Maybe… Also society, systemically? Maybe also the parents? Television, Internet culture, business culture, religion, oh yeah, also RELIGION.
You know what stops misogyny? Education and real leadership. Not blaming pornography and kids not knowing the difference between
musicmoviesvideogamesporn and reality.This is going to backfire hard. Kids aren’t stupid, they know when they’re looked down upon. These classes are going to be rejected by the boys who end up taking them, and they’ll resent what it stands for.
It reminds me of the US back in the 80s when schools pushed abstinence extremely hard. That didn’t stop kids from having sex, and this won’t stop misogyny.
The only way schools can contribute meaningfully to ending sexism is by providing a safe environment that requires young boys and girls to actually interact with each other in natural and healthy ways outside of class time.
yep. nothing makes kids resent you more than being condescending to them or telling them something is horrible and bad and will corrupt them.
this puritanism nonsense makes zero sense. sex education should be about the facts of sex. not value judgements about waht is ‘good’ porn or not. and female students should be included. this notion that ‘women don’t watch porn’ is completely nonsense.
The more you look into what’s being planned here, the worse it gets
Ever been to saudi arabia? because… that.
Kinda like how DARE taught us what all the drugs looked like, how to spot fakes, and how to find the dealers?
After reading the article, it seems like there’s a lot more to this than just classes for boys. I struggle to draw the same comparison to 80s abstinence-only sex education, and I think schools can contribute in more ways than the one you listed, like the ones mentioned in the article.
Are we reading the same things? Here are some quotes from the article that I found problematic:
Children as young as 11 who demonstrate misogynistic behaviour will be taught the difference between pornography and real relationships
They’re trying to pin porn as the cause of misogyny and that’s really stupid for a variety of reasons.
As part of the government’s flagship strategy, which was initially expected in the spring, teachers will be able to send young people at risk of causing harm on behavioural courses, and will be trained to intervene if they witness disturbing or worrying behaviour.
See, these classes are not meant to be a part of the normal sex ed curriculum where they’re taught to everybody because the information is valuable. They’re specifically meant to be punitive. The idea is to signal out kids and force them to take these classes as a consequence.
To out of touch activists, this sounds good, but in reality the kids who are being sent there are going to feel humiliated in front of their peers, and they’re going to resent both the material being taught and the system that put them through it.
Keir Starmer, announcing the strategy, said: “Every parent should be able to trust that their daughter is safe at school, online and in her relationships. But too often toxic ideas are taking hold early and going unchallenged.”
This is a theme that’s echoed in the entire article, and it is also reflected in the actual strategy. I could’ve quoted a bunch of different statements, but I specifically chose this one because it’s coming from the top. You have the PM here pushing the false idea that only girls can be victims and that boys are the problem.
The much-trailed strategy is expected to focus on three pillars:
- Preventing young men being harmed by “manosphere” influencers such as Andrew Tate.
Are you kidding me? The “manosphere” is an online slang term, Andrew Tate is a meme. How can you possibly draft policies in general, let alone ones about education, on something so vague, unsubstantiated, and unacademic?
The point is that if the entire curriculum was taught like normal sex ed where it’s apolitical, fact based, and required to be taken by all students because it contains useful information that they need to know then there wouldn’t be an issue. However, that’s not the case. It is narrative driven, it is not entirely fact based, and it’s not applied to all students across the board. The whole thing just seems unprincipled and poorly thought out. This strategy looks like something planned by radfem weirdos on Reddit, not by people who are in charge of the education system of an entire country.
Schools should focus on facts. Not political narratives about the evils of pornography necessarily leading to misogyny and sexual assault or that they are all ‘manosphere influenced’ until prove otherwise. that kind of mentality is some witch-hunt bullshit.
Porn is also incredibly diverse its content. Like video games, or comics, it’s treated as if it was this singular mass of crassness and crudeness and could never have any redemptive value. There is a vast difference between sexual assault fetish commercially produced porn and a loving couple who just wants to share tehir passion for sexual pleasure with each other with the world and make a few bucks on onlyfans. And the former is a dying breed.
You’re focusing specifically on porn, but the plan in the article doesn’t. The plan isn’t to tell boys to “just say no” to porn.
You’ll find no disagreements from me that porn isn’t necessarily the root cause of misogyny, but I don’t think anything in the article suggests that.
no i’m focusing on value judgement crap that assumes boys are all evil unless educated otherwise, and seeks to socially isolate them to ‘re-educate’ them.
this is the type of plan that is likely to backfire, and will probably introduce potential abusers to the tools to become better abusers. The average boy has no knowledge or interest in any of these things. it’s punishing the majority rather than addressing a minority.
also what are the specific criteria that identity a boy as a proto-misogynist? interesting how that isn’t mentioned. nor what ‘healthy relationships’ means. will this program be espousing traditional sexist gender values as ‘healthy’ ones? as if those values were not misogynistic?
I think you’re making some leaps here. Nothing in the article is suggesting that all boys are evil, or that they’re going to be socially isolated. Granted, the article doesn’t exactly give specifics about how it’ll be enacted, but I feel like you’re filling in the gaps with the worst stuff you can imagine, and then getting mad at that.
From my reading of the article, it seems like they’re just adding topics like pornography, deep-fake/image abuse, consent, coercion, peer-pressure, online abuse, etc. to the curriculum, coupled with training for teachers to be able to recognize and address misogynistic behaviors. Again, I’ll grant that the article is missing some important details like how they’re going to teach those various topics, how they’re going to empower teachers to identify problems, the checks and balances they’ll use to prevent teachers abusing the system, what they’re defining as misogyny, etc. But I feel like those details are a little too in-the-weeds for this type of overview article, and until we do know what those details are, I don’t think filling those gaps by assuming the worst is productive.
If this was based on scientific research, you bet that the creators would be pushing the academics that formed the policy to endorse this. This is just junk pseudo-science. Serious researchers would do small sample testing before rolling out a wide program, especially for something like this
No, the policy/program makes that assumption. Guilty, until proven innocent.
the article says they will be specifically targeted for being ‘misogynists’ but says nothing about what determines that qualification.
And if it’s like any other government education program, it will produce solely negative and crappy results and just be weaponized against students and teachers both, preventing free and educational discussions of these topics and teaching them according to some illiberal and idiotic stereotypical standards the know-nothing government officials have made out of ignorance and blanket determinations of what these things ‘are’.
I’m no in the UK but I’m well aware of how horribly the USA education system deals with these topics, and how all the schools take a HR approach to the topic rather than an educational one. We weren’t even allowed to ask questions about sex or relationships and it was taught from a narrow and ignorant perspective that ignored all the insights of modern science and social science.
And if it’s like any other government education program, it will produce solely negative and crappy results and just be weaponized against students and teachers both
This is how I know you’re just being grumpy to be grumpy. This is extreme hyperbole at best. No public education system is perfect, far from it, but to claim every government education system ever has only produced negative results is insane.
You’ll find no disagreements from me that porn isn’t necessarily the root cause of misogyny, but I don’t think anything in the article suggests that.
… the headline does
Yes, it’s a bad, clickbait headline. That’s why it’s important to read the articles.
Any large scale plan, involving teachers, and students needs to be boiled down to extremely simple concepts that can be taught in a few words. Most kids have a hard time with subtraction and division. This will become simplified and resented.
bingo. that’s the fundamental flaw.
sex and sexuality is incredibly complex, subjective, and nuanced. the government can’t even teach kids the basics of math and reading… and thinks it’s somehow going to teaching 11 year olds about sex is going to magically reduce violence… 11 year olds for most of whom sex is a foreign concept and will be until for another 4-6 years of their lives.
it’s political grandstanding really. they are doing this to score points with the public at the expense of school children.
Yep, except the opposite is happening in the schools. My Neice’s preschool punishes boys who pull girls hair (they’re four) and apparently the girls have learned if they don’t like a boy they can just start lying to get them in trouble… Wonder why misogyny is a rapidly growing movement among the youngin’s?
Why so negative? I’m too lazy to read the article, but are you commenting on actual lesson plans, or on what you assume the classes will be like? It doesn’t seem like a stretch to me that this could work for some kids, especially for those whose behavior is the result of exposure to porn at too young an age.
Yeah, for those of us whose school-provided sex education was actually informative, including puberty and sexual health units in mandatory health class in multiple different grades, I don’t see why this would have to be inherently badly taught.
It’s a weird “oh it’s impossible to teach anything properly so let’s not try” attitude that applies to a lot of discussions about education, even core academic subjects like math and science and history.
I recommend you read the article, it’s a pretty quick read. The way that this is planned sets it up for failure. This sounds more like something some politicians came up with to appease the activists in their base than something made by actual experts in the field who have the kids’ best interests in mind.
I thought they blocked all the kids from watching porn. How are they going to know what they’re talking about in these classes?
might as well tell them about the pickup artist grifters too, these are probably the primary source of that misogyny, i feel like porn is adjacent to this.
I personally feel that porn more than likely has fuck all to do with it and that this is part of a broader crusade against sex by the British government.
trying to deflect from the actual sources, the right wing grifters, and pickupartists, if you go back far enough it ends up with foreign individual funding all of this and any right wing legislation.
Not shocked.
One day porn addiction was a thing suffered by… no one? A very small group of people? However many people there were that legitimately gooned such that their life was negatively impacted and couldn’t stop.
Then it was fucking everyone, everywhere, and watching porn at all meant you were a depraved addict. And deviation from the sexual norm for a man - porn addict. Any non vanilla sex interests? Porn addict. Difficulty orgasming? Porn addict.
It came out of fucking nowhere. Nobody sees the agenda behind this shit, they just accept it. Media literacy is borderline nonexistent.
It didn’t come out of fucking nowhere. It (to the degree we see it today) came out of social isolation caused by the pandemic, at least in the US and Europe. Japan kind of already had the phenomenon even before COVID.
And AI on top of that is like an adult equivalent of the wire monkey experiment, except the wire monkey is adequately-convincing for many people and tells you whatever you want to hear.
I think anyone millennial or older can attest that access to porn has changed drastically in the past 2 decades. In the pre-youtube era video porn required physical media. Most teens were fapping to static images or soft core feature length films.
I do think getting access to the smorgasbord of pornography available these days at too young an age does short circuit the natural transition from boyish curiosity to healthy sexual interest.
Skipping over the phase where boobs is all it took and going straight to deepthroat anal gaping seems like a recipe for problems afaic. It’s like having absinth for your first alcohol instead of a beer.
Bro, when I was like 9 my friend was like: "oh cool, the internet, go to shiteaters.com and I was like: that’s a reasonable request, and it was exactly what you’d think it was.
I was using a 28k modem which was pretty good for the time.
Like. These days my ass.
Before all the tube sites there was limewire et al. And the tube sites are MUCH better in terms of the kind of content they freely offer, believe me.
no, it doesn’t.
the issue is economic insecurity, not watching porn.
also, just because stuff is available doesn’t mean anyone/everyone is watching it. you make a boatload of poor and false assumptions.
This explains so much about you…
Children as young as 11 who demonstrate misogynistic behaviour will be taught the difference between pornography and…
You are correct sir.
American here but I first saw a porn magazine at 8 or 9 years old. My friend would steal them from his older brother. 11 years old is not unreasonably young to have been impacted by porn, if that’s what you’re implying.
“Can’t talk now lads, I’m off to porn class!”
Tbh the threat of being labeled a gooner might do more to prevent misogyny than anything else
monty_python_meaning_of_life_scene.mp4
Sad that it is required and that parents are unwilling to do it
“Step-bro mom and dad wanna talk to us.”
(I’m so sorry. I couldn’t not)
I think I saw that one.
I doubt that the cause of misogyny in 11 year old boys is porn. I’m happy they’re trying something, I just hope it doesn’t backfire
yes, but if you were a unreasonable sex-negative person you would. and most people are unreasonable and have sex-negative views.
it’s also loaded with sexist assumptions that boys are sex offenders by default unless they are ‘corrected’ by society.
Same! I don’t know if this is the answer. But at least it’s something.
Back in my day, we had Big Brother Big Sister programs. But those programs were overwhelmed by need even when I was young.
And as kids (boys AND girls) turn to the internet and AI for direction about the opposite sex and how to treat each other, we need something to provide a another resource.
Waaay better than the porn bans and online age verification schemes, honestly.
I question why this is just for “children who show mysoginistic behavior”, though. Sex ed should be universal, and this should be a major part of sex ed.
I assume the fear here is parents complaining about their kids being talked about porn, which may end up being a larger underlying issue than the porn itself. I guess you just have to trust that education professionals handle the opportunity well and this doesn’t become a stern talking to for problem kids, which is likely to do as much as stern talking tos have done historically.
I question why this is just for “children who show mysoginistic behavior”, though. Sex ed should be universal, and this should be a major part of sex ed.
It’s because the goal here is for this be punitive, not educational. If the goal here was for valuable principles to be learned then it would be taught to everybody.
I agree, at least they’re actually focusing on an actual real world issue that widely impacts individuals. It is to point out, the highlight that only boys are talked about it - is oddly counter intuitive. If equality is the issue, then single sided efforts are going to further reinforce negative stereotypes.
And the point about sex-ed, is that it should be mandatory in education - it is a science like all and it prepares older children for when they become teenagers. Even so, stereotypical differences could be abolished if sexuality was formally talked in schools - after all we are all human, no matter what we have under there.
Yeah, I agree with you on this
This isn’t about sex ed, it’s about behavioural courses, which wouldn’t be appropriate for most children, just as it wouldn’t be appropriate to send every child who does something wrong to a referral unit.
No mention of what behavior they are talking about, misogyny is a pretty wide and often vague subject. It’s almost like we’re not supposed to know the details so we can’t decide for ourselves if the behaviors need ‘correcting’ instead of taking their word at a claim of misogyny alone.
I’ve been called a misogynist a lot. Mostly when I am confronting a woman about her crappy behaviour towards other people or myself. It’s definable a term that is used to avoid accountability, or against anyone who doesn’t agree with benevolent sexism towards women.
TBF you are a tactless individual.
deleted by creator
I’ve never been called a misogynist my entire life. People have made unfair criticisms, people have made fair criticisms, but nobody called me a misogynist.
I wonder what kind of rhetoric you consistently have for people to dig up for this word in particular when speaking about you. Should make you wonder, probably won’t.
They dig it up because our society, in america at least, sees women as children and thinks they should not be responsible for the consequences of their actions, nor should they be financially independent from men.
I get it the most from women when I tell them I am not interested in financially supporting a woman and tell them they should pay their own bills rather than be dependent on men for financial solvency. Turns out a lot of people HATE that idea and think if you don’t support women being financially dependent on men as a good life choice, you hate women.
I generally support the idea that men and women should be independent functional adults… and a lot of people see that as misogyny due to their gender bias assumption that men are to be providers/parents to women. And anyone who doesn’t aspire to that type of a relationship is hates women, because the only ‘proper’ way to be a ‘man’ is to have a woman you take responsibility for emotionally and financially.
I get it the most from women when I tell them I am not interested in financially supporting a woman and tell them they should pay their own bills rather than be dependent on men for financial solvency
I have a feeling that you were called a misogynist less because of this opinion in and of itself, and more because you probably bring this up unsolicited and seething at any opportunity.
Aaand there we go. The misogynist is called a misogynist for being an actual misogynist.
Quick and easy demonstration.
right, so if i don’t want to pay off my girlfriends college debt. i hate women?
yeah that’s exactly proving my point. according to you if I don’t want to pay $75K of someone else’s poor choices, and she is a woman… I hate women. if i was gay and dating a man and didn’t want to pay off his debt, does that mean i hate men or a i hate homosexuals?
It can’t be that I just hate entitled deadbeat people or that I want a partner who contributes equally to a relationship.
Which is precisely why people view me as hating women. Because I treat them as equals and expect equality from them.
“I’ve been called a misogynist a lot”
i’ve also been called gay a lot. and yet i have no sexual interest in men. weird how other peoples perceptions of you may be totally incorrect.
it’s almost as if other people’s opinions have no bearing on what we really are.
to quote my uncle: “i’m not gay, i’m italian. it’s easy to mix that up.”
Yes, I am Italian.
People also assume I’m Jewish and argue with me when I tell them I am not. They insist that one of my parents must be Jewish and I’m just in denial or something.
lol
They insist that one of my parents must be Jewish and I’m just in denial or something.
u know that exact thought came to me so many times. That some of my grandparent must be jewish because … idk it’s just a vibe.
Thought this was The Onion for a moment…
Onion articles make more sense.
I mean this sounds entirely sensible.
But I do worry what a bureaucratic system is likely to decide a normal relationship looks like won’t capture reality either.
Hopefully they use it as a lesson in consent. And leave it at that.
I don’t know enough about England’s politics to form an opinion on how they will actually end up botching it, but I feel like it’s going to be botched.
That’s the problem here. The news is about things that haven’t yet happened, leaving a lot for imagining.
We gonna have a class for girls on the difference between romance stories and real relationships?
to quote a (woman) friend of mine: “es heißt er-ziehen, nicht sie-ziehen, weil frauen muss man nicht erziehen.”
translation: it’s called he-ducation, not she-ducation (in german), because women are born perfect or sth. it works better in german though because “erziehen” is a bit decoupled from “educating” (we have “bilden” for that instead) and more on the “tell them what to do/how to behave” side
No, because we all know that men not living up to women’s fantasy ideals is their personal failing as men. These boys need to learn that if they aren’t BDSM billionaires they don’t deserve a woman.
And men having fantasy ideals about women, is hateful and bigoted. We can’t have that, and since porn is mostly male sex fantasies it is wrong and bad.
Found the incel
These boys need to learn that if they aren’t BDSM billionaires they don’t deserve a woman.
I’m sorry but that’s not why you don’t have a woman. It’s because your personality is insufferable, from what you’ve shown in this thread.
I don’t think porn is to blame for that, rather social media but at least there’s learning.
I’d like to know, what’s your opinion on banning social media for minors?
I used to be all against it but now i see the point in it. It should be done at the device-level though, not website’s responsibility.
I agree with that.
I think parents should be responsible for keeping an eye on what their kids are doing online. There are already a myriad of tools available to facilitate that. The government doesn’t need to be involved and sites certainly shouldn’t be collecting IDs from people unless absolutely necessary for some business/official reason to know who that person is.
If we could leave it up to them then we wouldn’t have any kids on social media. Having this conversation proves it’s not able to be left up to the parents.
But device locks already exist as you said, the proposal is to have them on by default.
They work in conjunction. Porn doesn’t present a complete picture and social media personalities fill those blanks with misogyny.
Is porn really behind the misogyny? What about the tards in the so-called “manosphere” saying all sorts of crazy and immoral shit? Those have more reach than whatever extremely weird pornography is supposed to be at fault. Is this what not being able to say “this is objectively wrong/right” because of Western moral relativism leads to?
It’s in the article and it’s very good. You should read it.
Preventing young men being harmed by “manosphere” influencers such as Andrew Tate.
That was one line in a whole article focusing on knowing porn isn’t realistic and whatnot… I just feel like if they had any hard moral beliefs (could be as simple and basic as the Ten Commandments, idk), they could build on them, this feels very inefficient.
I’d prefer teaching morals outside of any religion
That should be the default position for everything, including education and law making.
That should be the default position for everything, including education and law making.
you’d be surprised how much of our modern society is built upon thinly-veiled ideas from theology and spirituality. there’s the whole human rights thing, the whole “education makes us morally better people”, the list is long
Let’s be real, they’re mainly decorative in the West. You don’t BELIEVE in them, and if you could without believing in God then (some) Western societies wouldn’t be imperialistic, militaristic, materialistic, hedonistically nihilistic “societies” of amoral, lonely strangers. It doesn’t work, hence people like Andrew Tate are still allowed to have any sort of reach/exposure and porn is even a thing, just legal and everywhere. And American kids keep dying in schools while brown people get legally kidnapped and they are mostly “meh” about the whole thing one way or another because football is still on/Wicked 2 just came out…
The world would be a better place if we worshipped Satan.
Hail Satan, the source of all knowledge, pleasure, and achievement, the antithesis of god, religion, and puritanical bullshit.
The West already does, lol, at least in practice. Can’t follow God and just go around murdering, raping, pillaging all willy nilly, and let’s not forget their nihilistic hedonism, extreme selfishness, resistance to self-restraint, etc. 🤷
You obviously can follow god and go around meting and raping and pillaging.
Source: the entire fucking history of Abraham’s religion.
It’s almost like religion isn’t a good replacement for morals and personal values. Who could have imagined that?
I have no idea why you thought this was a good place to start a theological discussion; but this is about porn and young men. There isn’t anything magical about this, it’s actually one of the base, most human topics and young men have been talking about sex amongst themselves since language was put to use. I don’t see any place for you or anyone to inject dogma into it.
Religion is not a replacement but the foundation for those very moral beliefs, lol. And it’s not a theological discussion, I just put out a basic set of moral tenets one can live their life through, perhaps I should’ve mentioned “the golden rule” or something like that (even if it is part of Jesus’ message too, lol). Regardless, the point is the following: whatever values the West claims to believe is never actualized into actions (freedom whilst enslaving the world, enlightenment whilst being the most legally and culturally accepted degenerate and hedonistic folks, equality while… LOL) and that’s the core of the issue, you guys don’t actually believe in anything (generally speaking, I’m sure some of you will feel attacked but if it’s not you, you know your neighbour, else MAGA and Tommy Robinson and all that shit simply wouldn’t exist) and as such your values are decorative at best, a spin usually. And maybe getting into righteous monotheism (if your religion comes from the Romans fucking with the Abrahamic faith, this isn’t your case and never has been) could be the solution. But if you figure out a way to continue being essentially nihilists (what do you collectively believe in?! Can I say that Americans think greed is a sin, for instance? Jesus thought so but the society reflects the opposite, so what exactly do y’all believe in?!) but with deep moral understandings and a strong desire to do good and avoid evil, let me know!
Maybe the issues is they do believe in the bible and christianity? This is the religion that wiped out any others that were not aligned with it’s specific message and goals. It absorbed it’s morals, rituals and holidays from the others it destroyed. I mean, there was a fucking inquisition! Crusades. How many have been murdered by not following the ‘law of god’ or not being in the ‘right’ religion? Is it really morally right to treat and trade women like possessions or farm animals? To kill the firstborn of everyone who disagrees? ‘Oh, we dont follow that part anymore, we cherry pick what we want to use and believe in.’
It does not take religion to have morals. Being religious doctrine, does not make a thing moral.
Riiiight.
God is also decorative in the West. The most religious people in the West are also imperialistic, militaristic, materialistic, hedonistically nihilistic “societies” of amoral, lonely strangers. Clearly the problem isn’t cultural, it’s something more fundamental.
Which religion? What do they believe in? Certainly not the words of Jesus, the anti-imperialistic proto-feminist monotheist preacher of peace and righteousness, lol. The problem is sociocultural, the West hasn’t gone through their character arc, going from raiders, pillagers and murderers to the same but with tanks and bombs, and of course the Paulian Trinitarian, “faith without acts” nonsense that we call Roman Catholicism which was pushed by the powers that be at the time and is the basis for what remained in the West as a religion could never change that. This is like dating one abusive, gaslighting man and thinking that’s all love can be!
They certainly think they’re Christians.
Society and culture are downstream from the material conditions, and under the current material conditions the wealth and prosperity of society is built on the back of superexploitation, war, theft, slavery, and genocide. The kind of culture produced by empire can’t be moral, it doesn’t matter their religion or lack of religion. All moral positions are hollow under imperialism.
You aren’t going to end imperialism, militarism, materialism etc by just changing the society or the culture. It’s the exact opposite. You can only change society and culture by ending imperialism, militarism, materialism, etc etc. This is always the kind of society and culture that would have been produced by advanced capitalism, religion is entirely irrelevant.
Really living up to your name, lol
I try. 😅
Idk if you are jewish,christian or whatever else. But as a muslim i must applaud you for trying.
Western moral relativism
this is called post-structuralism btw, just so you can give a name to it
the idea that there is no (absolute) right or wrong, only subjective interpretations of the world
Thank you! I think I still prefer the way I put it, as I feel like the term “post-structuralism” kind of gives more weight to/normalizes this sort of nonsense, lol. 😅👋
Lots of things feed into it. The porn is just one of them.
This is part of a big effort to combat misogyny right now, which will be for naught when Reform rolls into power, declares it all “woke” and makes the problem 10 times worse.
Thing is the specific guy we’re all thinking of ran a porn company. One with little consent.
I do think porn is a symptom not a cause and targetting it wont actually help. Mistreatment of women wasnt exactly rare in say the 50s, even if it wasnt filmed for money.
Well, you know all the humiliation porn, hardcore porn, rape porn and such?
That’s not a very nice representation of sex that can be considered safe for anyone, especially young humans with a developing brain.
Can we say that is objectively wrong? Or are we all so addicted to porn that we get angry as soon as it comes up in such discussions?
“Young humans” sure. Not young humans, you absolutely do you.
There’s a bit of an emerging trend in leftist European circles in particular that sees porn as inherently patriarchal and wrong and we’re not ready for how much anti-porn is going to be the new terfism yet. This is going to suck a lot, and not in a good way.
in leftist European circles in particular that sees porn as inherently patriarchal and wrong and
i would just like to point out that not everybody sees it like that. i identify as leftist and don’t see things that way, even though porn often is exploitative. but that has nothing to do with the porn itself, but with the economic coercion that is at play when the thing is created: for money. that’s the problem, that it happens for money, and not voluntarily. and that’s an economic problem, not one of porn itself.
Absolutely it is not universal, but that’s… kind of the problem.
Porn isn’t that big of an issue either way. Left-wing movements can take a stance on whatever side of it. The problem is when issues like this end up being targeted at some portions of the left-wing spectrum but not to others and you end up with a split down the middle that one or both sides decide to make into a dealbreaking issue.
There’s a bit of an emerging trend in leftist European circles in particular that sees porn as inherently patriarchal
So long as women choose to do it to fulfill capitalist needs (which is to say, to avoid the implicit violence of homelessness and/or incarceration), rather than simply because they enjoy it, then it kind of is.
If not specifically patriarchal, then at least evil and exploitative in some capacity.
I don’t disagree with you, but if you’re going to take that position you have to include work as a whole, not just sex work. There are differences, sure, but we’re all selling our minds, bodies, and time just to stay alive.
Oh I absolutely do apply that position to all work. But I would do so with the caveat that if you have a career which helps people even despite the reality that you’re being exploited while doing so - like taking care of kids or special needs people or the environment or something - then that might provide you with more happiness than purely selling access to your body.
That’s not at all intended as a judgement of the mere fact, though. If you genuinely prefer sex work to the available alternatives to you, get that bag. Or maybe you even help people in your capacity as a sex worker, I don’t know.
It… kinda sounds like judgement.
So what happens to… you know, Uber drivers, software engineers for social media and Amazon drivers? Because there’s a biiig spectrum of work under capitalism, and it doesn’t fit particularly neatly in “selling your body” or “helping people”.
Look, nobody is saying that sex work can’t be exploitative or even that it’s not generally exploitative. The legal gray areas and general ickiness of the entire space is… a lot, and I think it needs specific regulation. But to take it as a uniquely patriarchal, capitalistic thing distinct from “normal” work requires not seeing it as proper labor, but as inherently… well, they do kind of abuse the word “abolition” very pointedly.
That has a long, nasty tradition with pretty unhealthy side effects, honestly.
In any case, that’s the rhetorical trick I’m worried about. You let the right own sex work AND you let the stance on this split feminist/leftist spaces in half and you’ve manufactured a mix of TERFism and the concession of “free speech” as a fascist talking point. It’s a political problem more than a policy problem, frankly.
So educating children about porn equals being anti-porn?
I want education about drugs as well as liberalization of the same.
You know, the world is not black and white, left and right, like they have led you to believe.
Think with your own mind and exercise some objectivity, especially on important topics like education.
That’s a cool argument you’re having with a thing nobody said.
Educating children about sex in general is educating children about sex (and nobody here has argued against it or equated it with being anti-porn).
There is a rising trend in European lefitsm, and particularly in European feminism, that argues that all porn is inherently pernicious and ultimately should not exist.
Note those are two separate statements.
You definitely dabbled in the second of those statements when you claimed that “that [can’t] be considered safe for anyone”. Whether you meant to say what you said is in your head, but as presented that slope is both mighty slippery AND very consistent with some of the very anti sex-work trend I’m talking about. The false equivalence and misquote at the top of your response doesn’t lead me to believe you’re treating this “objectively”, either.
LOL
As I said already, if you have any doubt you can do your own research like I did instead of trying to confirm your beliefs in a random comments section.
Also I’ll point out that your arguing about leftism, feminism, terfism and whatnot like you feel persecuted when we are only talking about educating children on the difference between porn and reality and about factual (that, again, you can look up) psychological implications of consuming porn, is all incredibly weird.
Is porn that important for you? Is it such a meaningful part of your life that you can’t even stand criticism?
Or do you think porn is some kind of free expression of sexuality that should be protected?
I like drugs and I use them, but I don’t lose my mind whenever a study finds out that this or the other substance is harming me.
What the actual fuck mate?
I, once again, did not say or imply that I am persecuted in any way.
I do think porn is free expression, of sexuality and otherwise, and should be protected about as much as any other form of free expression. Which is not universally and without limit, before you try that one.
And all of that is not the same as saying I “can’t stand criticism” about it. Which I didn’t say or think. I will actively, aggressively criticise actual porn, both as a media product and as an industry.
Once again, the strawmanning and talking points aren’t doing much to disprove the notion that anti-porn activism will become the new TERF-like trojan horse wedge among ostensible leftist movements going forward. People don’t like to talk about those, but they are bad and this is incoming.
Again you keep talking about leftism and such, but you should invest the time you are wasting with this empty walls of text in reading some research on porn.
Would be definitely healthier than watching porn itself or fueling your paranoia against whoever you think is your enemy.
Good luck!
that’s porn
it’s not real lifeA simple web search will prove you wrong.
… humiliation porn, hardcore porn, rape porn …
the porn is porn
the real life incidents are real lifeAnd teaching young kids about the difference is important, because you are 100% right but kids don’t realize unless taught.
I’m not talking about the tragic endings of the process, but about the process itself.
More violent porn being consumed leads to more demand of the same. It basically rewires your brain, like drugs. Look it up if you have any doubt.
Educating about porn should be mandatory like educating about drugs and all similarly harmful stuff.
So, rough sex is inherently bad?
That’s a pretty wild stretch to back bigotry.
No no, I’m sure the industry is completely reformed since
Linda LovelessTwo Girls One Cup.
Of course it is, it’s grotesque! But it’s faaaaaaar from the core of the issue. Men can be/are misogynistic way before they get a girl in bed consensually… like I said in another reply, very inefficient, like ice on broken leg.
It’s funny because your religion is deeply misogynistic too and that is blatant even in the cringe commandments.
I’m not Christian/Catholic/Trinitarian, I just mentioned the commandments because they stand on their own and they’re closer to the West…
So close that they shaped the patriarchal society we live in.
No, thanks.
The “patriarchy” is not why women are mistreated and porn is rampant… What kind of father wants his daughter to be abused or become a prostitute?! Your framework is all wonky and the words are all wrong.
Patriarch != father
Today you learned.
Probably the same fathers and mothers who
momentsmolest their children, sell them to pay for bills and drugs and anything else.What world is it that you live in? Maybe trump didn’t want his daughters to become prostitutes, but that didn’t stop him and many other men with daughters to abuse children younger or the same age as their own daughters. Maybe if you spent some time in the real world, and less in a magical one; you could see that many things exist in it.
Let’s not pretend other religions’ adherents don’t also indulge in/participate in/create porn, human trafficking, and other horrific abuses of adults and children. From Buddhists to taoists to Hindus and monotheists and everyone else.
And to keep it fair, even atheists.
Human beings make mistakes and are sinful/antisocial at times, of course, but not every sociocultural group condones, excuses and even legalises these failures of character.
When it keeps happening by people in positions of an authority, it’s a pattern of abuse, not a mistake. And predators are really good at masking and positioning as authority figures or other power positions.
I’m not sure if your arguments are conditioning/naïveté, gaslighting, plain ignorance, or gaslighting, but they sound a lot like abusers I’ve encountered, inside societal institutions. I invite you to reflect rather than deflect and excuse the inexcusable.
