I hope we all know this and are just doing it as a bit, but sometimes I do see shit on this website that makes me go “Oh y’all are genuinely just weird prudes”
The “gooner epidemic” is not real, gooning is an incredibly niche kink that very few people engage in.
“Porn addiction” is basically non existent and affects such a small portion of the population as to not be relevant. The idea that most people have in their heads about porn addiction is propaganda made up by evangelicals.
We do not live in an overly-sexually-liberated time. There is not an excess of sexual content or exposure to it.
Most of the time when people talk about “the gooner problem” what they’re actually talking about is a mix of two unrelated things, people living normal sexually liberated lives, and undersocialized young men that don’t know how to interact with people.
Sex is good. We should be having more of it. We should encourage healthy, safe sex featuring whatever kinks you and your partner(s) consent to. Don’t fall for puritan propaganda comrades.
Uh it is. The fuck is wrong with you.
Assault ≠ harassment
what is wrong with you to equate someone looking at nudes or whatever with an actual assault? like i literally don't even want to describe "actual assault" in greater detail because that in and of itself feels gross
Like you're over there going, whatever, chud, reactionary, at me, like Im being gross for saying "these things are not equivalent" but I think what you are doing is way, waaaay, waaaaaay more gross, especially when saying "looking at porn at work isn't sexual assault" isn't the defense of looking at porn at work you seem to think it is
You: this person is gross, they don't think looking at porn at work is a big deal
Me: this person is gross, they think looking at porn at work is equivalent to one of the most deeply violating acts a person can experience
But woops im not a mod so im wrong i guess
you do understand there are different types & degrees of sexual assault / sexual harassment, right
yes but okay, I can't use the specific word, because it is word filtered, and trying to describe the act without the more specific word feels gross, but that is literally my point. It is not the equivalent of r word sexual assault which was literally the opinion I was seeing
Yeah but it is definitely more than just "sexual harassment" so I don't know how else to quantify it. Like literally exposing your coworkers to pornographic content is way more than just harassment I don't know what to call it but we literally had some weirdo on here defending against people calling it harassment not assault so it seemed like you were defending that individual by bringing up what I can only assume is a reference to that guy. If anything you started with a strawman and I didn't bother to correct you but now I am and I think your response to me is also indignant and suspect.
I assume they mean, like, in secret?
"Looking at porn in private" or "looking at porn secretly taking precautions to not be caught" is going to be perceived different than "looking at porn at work" by most people
Yeah, no. The only incident they could possibly be referring to was one user that explicitly tried to defend "looking at porn at work where others can see it" when called out on it being harassment and not assault.
I guess to me the secret part was implied because it seems like conduct which would result in instant firing or close to it if discovered. Depends on the workplace I suppose.
Always good to clarify because I'm often clueless about implications in text.
if i hear "looking at porn at work" i'm assuming that's like in a toilet stall on your phone, or in an office you can lock and have some privacy.
Guess I'm built different but i think it's reasonable to assume some people interpreted it in the least charitable way when claiming it's akin to assault. Whether you agree with the characterisation or not
the person in the incident I can only assume they must be describing was most certainly not meaning in secret. They were banned over this.
didn't realize that by discussing this in the abstract we were relitigating a specific incident but okay.
There is literally only one time that topic has ever come up so how could I think it was anything but a reference to that specific event.
It really really isn’t??? And the fact that you’re claiming it is is actually very concerning to me and definitely detracts from actual sexual assault like WizardofLoneliness said
Okay but the user and event I assumed they are talking about that actually did happen was people rightfully calling out a guy that admitted to looking at porn at work as doing sexual harassment not assault and so it came off as bad faith defense of that individual hence my knee-jerk response.
Ah yes I was not aware of the details of the specific incident, I was just thinking of the countless cases I’ve heard of people getting in trouble for watching porn at work where it’s just weird. If the specific incident was fucked your reaction totally makes sense