I read that there is pressure on boys to appear nonthreatening for as long as possible. They benefit when the growth spurt from aw cute to damn hot is quick.
That's really interesting. I've always observed anecdotally that female preferences change drastically between very young women and older. Specifically, teen magazines aimed at young girls always seem to have very feminine, boyish, non-threatening males. My observation has been that this preference is dropped pretty sharply as women get a little bit older.
I never knew (and still, don't know) to what degree this trait is actually universal. (ie, perhaps it's just a weird quirk of teen magazines in the last 30 years) Do you have links to that study or anything like it? I'd like to check it out.
> My partner, a journalist, has gotten death threats
Sorry that happened to your partner.
I am surprised that death threats are still around. Is it not actually a crime or is anonymity so good that law enforcement can't trace them or do the recipients or police just not bother following up?
It's the latter two. It's generally out of the jurisdiction of local police departments, and the FBI doesn't have anywhere near the manpower to take every threat seriously.
Personally, I'd really like to see them put at least a little effort into it, to send the message that it is in fact illegal and you take at least some risk. As it is, people often make no real effort to disguise themselves, but get away with it because no authority cares enough as long as they don't commit actual violence. So they can shut down speech with impunity.
> businesses like PornHub and MasterCard are terrified of brand association with child porn and sex trafficking
With PornHub that makes sense because the type of content they provide is the crux of their businesss.
But does anyone care or know what MasterCard is associated with? I would not even think to blame PG&E for providing electricity, even if the recipient turned out to be doing some super illegal things with that electricity.
So I am not convinced by reputation damage to payment processors. I am more convinced by unacceptably high chargebacks and fraud, but even there it is hard to explain the about face that payment processors have made here. Curious!
The story [1] literally called them out: "And call me a prude, but I don’t see why search engines, banks or credit card companies should bolster a company that monetizes sexual assaults on children or unconscious women. If PayPal can suspend cooperation with Pornhub, so can American Express, Mastercard and Visa."
> But does anyone care or know what MasterCard is associated with?
The average layperson would care if MasterCard got hit with a headline like:
"MasterCard processed payments for Very Bad People for months/years!".
Layperson: Guess I'm calling my congressman and switching to Visa!
I assume MasterCard would (a) retain some very good PR firms to assist with keeping their image clean and (b) distance themselves from anything that might tarnish their image, like, well, regular porn websites.
Would they though? I very rarely consider which credit card processor I'm using - it's what card has the best interest/rewards/whatever, or what logo does my personal bank use on their debit cards. It's not like I can go to my bank and say "I'm done with the mastercard debit card, give me your visa debit card please"
> it's what [credit] card has the best interest/rewards/whatever
...and doesn't have a reputation in the toilet.
Would you get a SatanCard(tm)? Generous 10% cash back rewards but we make our money by extorting the elderly, killing kids, addicting adolescents to hard drugs, profiteering on pollution in your hometown, kicking puppies on video, and if you die we come after your family for the money, regardless of local laws.
I feel like the better comparison is what happened with Craigslist and Backpage. Their elevator pitch business model sounded legit but anyone that sniffed around knew what the site was predominantly focused on. CL was more diversified in terms of site usage, revenue, etc and could easily just ban adult services when the heat turned up. Backpage was just a front for sex work. There was no material classifieds business beyond adult services. A small percentage which could potentially be of the trafficked variety that brought on the heat. They made some dumb choices that contributed to their demise but only because of the bullseye that was put on them by the trafficking rhetoric. It feels to me like OF has either been told an investigation is occurring/likely to occur and is trying to soften any future blows -or- they are just being proactive knowing that this risk is present and would kill their company if it came down to it.
Are they powerful though? Or rich even? They might have momentary reach like some celebrities and influencers but does that extend to effecting consumer behavior and would advertisers work with them?
How so? Murder seems to be very looked down upon in most cultures and is not generally accepted. There are nations that wage war, yes, but this is not generally accepted as good. And in daily life, murder has been basically banished completely (compared to, for example, 200 years ago, where murders for honor or duels were more socially acceptable).
> Murder seems to be very looked down upon in most cultures and is not generally accepted.
Mostly for people’s in-groups. The care goes down as in-group association goes down.
—-
America, Europe/NATO, and other allied countries have unnecessary “wars” and conflicts and use things like drones to murder people. Drones killing people randomly isn’t war a lot of the time.
Murder definition is silly. Says “unlawful” killing of someone. Who determines what’s lawful when the countries included at the beginning do stuff overseas? Obviously some will consider all the killing done as murder.
It’s not hard to say we (as in the west) murdered Yemenese, Afghans/Pakistanis (the drones attacking people), Palestinians, and more in recent years. Then we have the big name ones like murdering the Iranian general a year ago.
via equity, alliance, and diplomatic and financial support. Not directly, but murder charges in most countries can be charged to people who aren’t directly doing the killing too
Are you saying that working retail or construction is about the same as doing porn in terms of how society treats you? That does not match my experience by a long shot. They are qualitatively different.
> Religious morality is the only reason a much more safe, comfortable and lucrative option like OnlyFans is banned.
I do not think this is right either. Take away all the religious baggage and still parents will try to keep their daughters from doing porn. Change our neurobiology so we don't act that way and, well you have a different species.
I believe they're saying working retail or construction is about the same as doing porn in regards to how some people have to work jobs that break them down (emotionally, physically or socially) for money.
> I believe they're saying working retail or construction is about the same as doing porn in regards to how some people have to work jobs that break them down (emotionally, physically or socially) for money.
You believe the long lasting consequences of doing porn and being a waitress are exactly the same? You've never been involved or talked to a porn performer. Suicide rates for the latter don't lie.
> Sex is similar. We are descended from males who mated with as many women as they could. Maybe not all men are like me, but there is a part of my brain that literally wants to mate with every attractive woman I see.
Not quite. We are descended from sexual pairs whose children survived long enough to reproduce. Often, it took at least both mother and father to keep children alive. And human female reproduction selects for males who stick around, primarily by hiding most signs of ovulation, unlike many other mammals with obvious signs of momentary fertility.
But you're not wrong either. Both male and female reproductive strategies want to maximize number and viability of offspring, but the female cost is much higher than the male cost in time and energy, so males can theoretically roam more easily. In the past, mobility and low populations generally limited that ability (though Genghis Khan managed). That's the disconnect between prehistoric and modern humans that porn and dating apps exploit.
"It takes a village." Extended family care and smaller tight-nit communities were more common than they are now. If you're talking about extra-pair paternity, it's estimated to be only 2% in humans.
> Women, in general, don't really have to try to get solicitations.
Women put in high effort up front and lower effort per solicitation. Men put in lower effort up front and more effort per solicitation. Women's approach scales better, though they also bear the safety risks.
> those that feel the system is tilted against them in general don't understand that it's just them
Absolutely. Imagine if dating apps showed users their rating!
> At Tinder headquarters, I ask them if the data they’re about to show me will scar my ego. The beauty of Tinder, after all, is that rejection has been removed entirely from the process. Now, in an instant, I’d learn exactly how I ranked on Tinder. Then Solli-Nowlan revealed my score. “It’s 946,” he said. What does that mean? “It’s on the upper end of average.” It’s a vague number to process, but I knew I didn’t like hearing it. Something about “upper end of average” didn’t exactly do wonders for my ego. https://www.fastcompany.com/3054871/whats-your-tinder-score-...
On the other hand, showing your rating could be good IF coupled with actionable ways to improve it. Credit Karma but for Tinder anyone?
