undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmystraline8mo ago0 comments

> Some porn is exploitative, but also so are other things. Why is the attack being made upon porn and not exploitation?

If we are to talk about exploitation, then capitalism itself is subject to be attacked and prohibited.

If we work for a living, we sell our bodies to someone else for a time (40h a week or more). Does it really matter if we work on a factory floor doing parts, sitting and coding at a desk, or having sex in front of a camera? Labor is labor.

Sure its the christian 'sex is bad' in various stripes (puritanical to catholic to baptist etc). But in reality, its just different labor.

Now, capitalism in exploitive in that you generate X value, and you get a small percentage of your labor's output. Some owner is who collects the surplus.

So if exploitation is the problem, then its time to start looking at worker cooperatives, unions, banning shows like Shark Tank, and all the capitalist propaganda.

But no, its just 'sex icky'. We won't actually look at the root of exploitation.

0 comments

simplify8mo ago

You're framing of "sex icky" is a common reductionist approach to remove all humanity from the topic and try and make it purely logical. But that's always been a ridiculous way to argue.

The human experience has never been pure reason. A picture of a naked person will have wildly different effects than a picture of a dog, even though you could technically say they're both "just pixels on a screen". Reductionism doesn't get an argument anywhere; it's too commonly an intellectually lazy defense of the vulgar.

mystralineOP8mo ago

Remember, that the SCOTUS judgement of what obscenity is defined as, is "I'll know it when I see it".

I prefer reductionist rather than the current standard of 'whatever 9 fucks think of it'.

simplify8mo ago

Of course you prefer reductionist, because that fits your interest of doing nothing, rather than seeking a solution to the very real destructive consequences of the genre in question. That's what I mean by intellectually lazy.

Porn is way easier to define than obscenity, so I don't see that being a problem.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsmystraline8mo ago0 comments

> Some porn is exploitative, but also so are other things. Why is the attack being made upon porn and not exploitation?

If we are to talk about exploitation, then capitalism itself is subject to be attacked and prohibited.

Sure its the christian 'sex is bad' in various stripes (puritanical to catholic to baptist etc). But in reality, its just different labor.

Now, capitalism in exploitive in that you generate X value, and you get a small percentage of your labor's output. Some owner is who collects the surplus.

So if exploitation is the problem, then its time to start looking at worker cooperatives, unions, banning shows like Shark Tank, and all the capitalist propaganda.

But no, its just 'sex icky'. We won't actually look at the root of exploitation.

0 comments

simplify8mo ago

You're framing of "sex icky" is a common reductionist approach to remove all humanity from the topic and try and make it purely logical. But that's always been a ridiculous way to argue.

mystralineOP8mo ago

Remember, that the SCOTUS judgement of what obscenity is defined as, is "I'll know it when I see it".

I prefer reductionist rather than the current standard of 'whatever 9 fucks think of it'.

simplify8mo ago

Porn is way easier to define than obscenity, so I don't see that being a problem.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse