This is not about gender or sex. This is about any person creating damage for their future selves online. Whether you like it or not, people running businesses and hiring people, or school teachers etc, have opinions and views of their own. These factor into their decisions when they are interacting with you through daily life.
If somebody who takes a dim view of promiscuity sees that you have an only fans account, they are going to immediately have bias in any decisions that involve you. This is just a fact of life, and nothing to do with the gross reduction of 'women needing to be pure'.
People used to say the same about getting divorced or getting a tattoo or having a child "out of wedlock" (even the terminology sound hopelessly outdated).
Maybe think about which side of history you prefer to be on.
These things you mentioned are all still looked on negatively by some people. My grandma curses 'bastards' and children 'out of wedlock'. People still lose out on jobs for having face and neck tattoos, its in the media regularly.
In exactly the same way as having an OF account, its up to the person doing these things to judge the consequences of whether they are happy with some people in the world looking down on them.
> These things you mentioned are all still looked on negatively by some people.
I don't know anyone who has been denied a job or an opportunity because of those issues. I also don't know anyone who has been denied an opportunity because they made adult content. Does it happen? Absolutley. Is it crippling to the point of ostracization? Not even close.
If anything, being able to filter out people who would look down on those attributes/experiences is increasingly becoming a net positive. I wouldn't wan to associate with someone who disparaged people because they have a piecing or like to take naked photos.
Nobody is arguing that it is, I think you are taking this a bit too far. All anybody has said is that some people have a dim view of sex work, thats it, and its true. Stop trying to extrapolate and assume further than the point in question.
> being able to filter out people who would look down on those attributes/experiences is increasingly becoming a net positive
And there I was foolishly thinking we were all trying to move to a more tolerant and accepting world. Thats an incrdibly devisive opinion and is the basis for cancel culture.
I for one would rather try to understand peoples opionins and discuss it with them rather than to 'filter them out'.
> I wouldn't wan to associate with someone who disparaged people because they have a piecing or like to take naked photos.
Then we are very different people. I will associate with anybody, and try to find the best in them along with some common ground to work on together.
Want a better world? You can only change peoples minds with kindness.
I don't know about you, but my life is too short to associate with troglodytes. Especially when there are so many amazing open-minded, open-hearted weirdos out there I can spend my days with.
No I dont consider myself so important that I am above interacting with anybody, nor do I think my opinions are better or more correct than anybody elses.
I think even if you were to spend your life just getting to know and educating 1 bigotted person so much so that they change they views just a little, that would be a life well spent.
Why are the bigoted people so important that it's worth wasting a perfectly good life appealing to them?
Fuck em. Progress happens when a new idea achieves enough cultural cache that the expressing the backwards view becomes a fringe belief, worthy of ostracization. 30 years ago, gay marriage was a contentious issue. Today, it's sociopolitical suicide to oppose it. Before that it was women entering the workforce, or desegregation.
> you should work on formulating more correct opinions that you believe in and can defend.
No thanks, Im happy being open minded and willing to have good debates which can change either sides opinion. If you are not open to having your mind changed, you can not call yourself open minded.
Lets not let this devolve any further into a spat about opinion. Im not telling you yours is wrong, you can stop trying to tell me mine is now.
> I don't know anyone who has been denied a job or an opportunity because of those issues.
How would they know? I suspect there's some selection bias at play here because it might not be legal to discriminate on this basis.
> (...) because they have a piecing or like to take naked photos.
That's a strawman. The discussion doesn't concern people who "like to take naked photos"; it concerns people who do it for money. Depending on your values, that can be a significant difference.
Firing someone for having tattoos or having done sex work is completely legal in almost all US states. Generally speaking, the only things private employers can’t discriminate based on is things intrinsic to who the person is (race, sexuality, non-relevant disability), and religion. Past choices are completely legal to fire someone for, even if it has nothing to do with the job at hand.
I was being mildly playful with my language, but I mean and intended to mean people who get naked for money. The difference is pretty minimal if you ask me.
People who are covered in tattoos (not just having a tattoo) and who have children out of wedlock are still widely looked down upon.
And there is very little that is more obnoxiously smug than making "right side of history" claims. If anything, I want to be on the opposite side of people who do that, because they're so fucking self-righteous I can't stand them.
That's true for every part of the human experience. People discriminate because of religion, etc. Sounds like you care too much about what other people think of you.
Anyways, my point is this sort of thing is rapidly becoming something nobody cares about, and that's due to feminism and it's a good thing.
While I somewhat agree with you, feminism and related ideologies created a whole new network of concepts of what is good and wrong, and these can bite you as much as the old prejudices. A good example is the Harry Potter lady: while I don't necessarily agree with her view, I do understand her concern and the right to express it - but for many people it's a criminal offense. Almost as if we replaced one cage with another.
Troubled Blood isn't marketing transphobia save in the mind of a reviewer with an axe to grind wrt Rowling's public statements.
The wikipedia page outlines the charge that it contains "pernicious anti-trans tropes" and continues:
Nick Cohen, writing for The Spectator, argued that the transphobia accusations were baseless and slanderous, noting that Dennis Creed is investigated along with a dozen other suspects.
He also stated that the book does not engage in the politics of women-only spaces and access to gender reassignment treatments.
Alison Flood, writing for The Guardian, expressed similar views, arguing that people who have not read the book were making wrong assumptions based on a single review.
Allan Massie, writing for The Scotsman, stated of the character of Creed that "there is no suggestion that he was transgender".
The point is not that these books include transphobia or not, the point is she chose to include transgender characters after all the drama on twitter relating to her likes and accounts she folllowed/supported.
She definitely used all that drama to sell books and benefited from it.
Is this non sequitur from a meconium account intended to convey a meaningful response, or is it a baby-bot randomly attaching nonsense to threads to establish a beachhead?
The prime suspect of the novel is a serial killer who cross-dresses. A book written years after she started campaigning near-daily about the threat of trans women. Those media outlets are being very misleading.
The Spectator is a right-wing British newspaper with dozens of anti-trans articles and op-eds. The Scotsman and The Guardian also have very anti-trans skews. (The latter less so, but definitely more anti than pro overall.)
It's fair to say that fearmongering about trans people isn't the central focus of the novel, but she obviously knew exactly what she was doing and why.
> The prime suspect of the novel is a serial killer who cross-dresses.
And Barry Humphries is a beloved Australian entertainer who cross dresses. Neither are transgender.
Further, the prime suspect of the novel, Dennis Creed, is closely based on real life serial killers such as Angus Sinclair, Jerry Brudos, and Russell Williams who all share victim name details and traits with the fictional Creed, such as messing with bodies, fetishism, etc
None of these real life serial killers were trans gender, at least two cross dressed, and there are very few serial killers that lack a pathology.
There appears to be some in the world who will see a crime genre author write about a serial killer and immediately conclude that killer must be trans and some kind of transphobic stereotype.
I'm not one of those people.
FWiW I did vote for Leigh Varis-Beswick as mayor of Kalgoorlie but that was mainly due to her having some good ideas for change and having been a lifelong friend of my sister.
>the right to express it - but for many people it's a criminal offense
No it wasn't. Even in the UK, a supposed hellscape of unfree speech, she only finally got into any trouble when she repeatedly told outright and trivially knowable lies about another person. There's no guarantee she loses that court case either, so she hasn't exactly faced any repercussions for her speech. Companies are still making boatloads of harry potter content and it still sells like hotcakes.
This is 100% correct. We haven't become more enlightened and tolerant, we have simply exchanged what we don't tolerate. That may or may not be good, but it certainly isn't worth patting ourselves on the back as if we're somehow better than our forebears.
Thats the whole point, that some people view promiscuity and sexualising ones self no differently to smelling bad, or wearing scruffy clothes, or having a negative attitude. Its just another trait which some people view dimly.
But there is some backslash against feminism in western world and there are communities where OF is (and always was) off the limits. Also I think that some parts of OF are at least debateable from feminist POV.
And it's not just that it's no longer acceptable (as a normative declaration), people just stopped caring. At least in a bubble that's large enough so you can lead a comfortable life without any serious ramifications.
I wouldn't and I haven't, and I have dated a sex industry worker.
BUT
When I dated someone in the industry I quickly realized why many people avoid such workers. It's highly correlated with HEAVY drug use, severe mental illness, and sad family stories. Not challenges lot of people looking for in a relationship, especially if they want children.
Oh wow, god forbid you date someone who wasn't as privileged in their past.
I get what you are saying, but nearly everyone who has ever lived is full of baggage. After a certain age, any relationship you start will involve talking about all the bad shit you both experienced, how it affected you, how you've grown and dealt with it, etc. Just be an adult about it.
What matters is whether a person who had a bad past is willing to put in the effort to deal with it. A former heavy drug abuser who sought out some form of treatment or has largely healed is a fine partner. A partner who is still sneaking out and stealing to get their fix is much less so.
It's really really easy to just not hold someone's past against them too hard if they are demonstrably a better person currently.
Yeah, but thats the point. How should I know. Its a matter of trust. If you have made decisions like that in the past, why should I trust you to have changed? People are deceptive. Better avoid the drama altogether.
As long as she matched with me on a personal, intellectual, and moral level, and is a good match in general, sure. I would like to understand her motivations for doing so of course, but that's what dating is all about.
Besides, if some other hypothetical perfect match told me she still went to church until her 25th and actually believed all that stuff I wouldn't dismiss her outright either for doing something so silly, but similarly seek to understand her first.
However its slightly different to the discussed point here, which is that people who use their dick or vagina to make money publicly can later have that used against them.
Theres nothing wrong with dating a sex worker, but when you want to make them a wife and have children, there becomes a risk that some crazy drug addict is going to spot them in the future and do something. Mabye they are going to call out to your wife while she is dropping the kids off at school. Maybe they will be a bit more sinister and threaten to send old OF videos to your kids ands kids teachers email address unless you give them some money, or do it again etc.
These are of course hypotheticals, but they have happened in the past and it is a risk, however small, of having an ex sex worker as a life partner.
It can only be used against you if people think it can be used against you.
Like, imagine a world where we said, " you flipped burgers in college? Eww gross, you've robbed your life!"
It sounds absurd because we've collectively decided one of those jobs is good and one is bad. We can collectively decide they are both fine, actually.
Also, if you're that model includes "random drug addict who is aware of my wife's porn career notices my wife, then chooses to act on it" I think your threat model may need revising. Yes, I'm sure that happens hundreds of times a year in the US. Driving a car to school seems statistically MUCH more dangerous.
> Would you not have a relationship with someone you like and likes you back?
For a lot of men the knowledge of the OF carrier kills the attraction that they had. Just like some women lose attraction when they learn that you subscribe to OF content.
That line of reasoning tends to break down pretty quickly. Unless you're truly special, there are probably people out there who've done something so awful that you wouldn't date them despite the fact that they're "a person, same as me".
You missed my point. A lot of guys act like it somehow taints someone for life or repeat all the redpill 'pair bonding' nonsense, and don't judge people on their own merits.
You're not picking out make and model of a car, you're building a relationship with another person.
I don't know what "redpill 'pair bonding'" means because I'm old, so it's possible that I misunderstood. That said, I don't think it's far-fetched to assume that someone who willingly engages in prostitution (as a seller or a buyer) has a somewhat cynical and transactional relationship with sex, and I understand why many people might not like that.
I'd never seriously date someone if we couldn't be totally open and honest about our sexual histories and desires, etc. I think you're referring to a specific motivation some people have about wanting to know such information that is based on shame/insecurity/prudishness. Don't discount that some people want to share these things with their partner because it creates more intimacy and/or is hot.
There is a difference between solicited and unsolicited information. In my experience people who can't live with someone without asking them the number of past partners are the toxic ones.
If you regard it as unsolicited information, you seem to put a judgement on it yourself. Perhaps more than the people who would just like to know. Not a requirement but it would also no be unusual in a relationship.
By unsolicited information, I mean it is normal to be open and comfortable speaking about your past sex life regardless if you partner asked to know about it. But specifically be curious and intrusive about your partner's past is different.
Bottom line: this kind of information might come naturally without someone having to ask for it and in that context it is totally fine.
Sorry english is not my native language so maybe I am not making it clear enough.
Hahaha. For me, its the people that want to hold that information back which are toxic and manipulative like hell. Its simple. If you want to hide it, it was likely very bad and your partner should know. If you manage to hide it, you are the toxic person.
Maybe - or maybe they just have different viewpoints on sex than you.
Do you think it would be okay to ask someone how many kittens they have stomped to death in the past? And, if the answer is greater than zero, to break off the relationship?
Indeed, I would like to know if you have no problem killing kitten. That attitude is likely going to be an issue further down the road. Better get it settled now then later.
If the number of ex or sexual intercourses is the one of the first questions you ask when you are in the "prospective" state, yes that is creepy. And a huge warning sign that you are probably a toxic person.
I don't care about ex partners. I'd rather know if my sexuality is compatible with that person and if that person is comfortable/confident with their sexual life.
You added "one of the first questions" to make your position seem less insane, Lmao.
Nobody's first question is "have you ever been a porn star" but it's going to come up eventually and, whether or not you care it will definitely be a deal breaker for many.
Your comment above was mentionning "prospective partner", so it implies happening during the early stages of a relationship.
Or I don't know, maybe in your culture you have to wait months / years before considering a partner someone you are dating regularly / spending a significant part of your life with.
Knowing somebody before being in a relationship with them is anything but unusual. Even if you start dating somebody you never knew before you still get to know each other before making any sort of commitment. Keep coping though.
