- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Here are some interesting takes on how Puritanism has harmed lgbtq+ spaces online and the internet in general.
You must log in or register to comment.
I was big in fandom spaces circa 2002-2008 and it’s pretty crazy to me how much the culture has changed. Livejournal is where I got introduced to the concepts of social justice and intersectionality and all that, and it’s morphed into something pretty weird.
I’m personally kind of a prude and am uncomfortable with oversexualization but I don’t think this puritan, regressive path is the way to go.
I’m personally kind of a prude and am uncomfortable with oversexualization but I don’t think this puritan, regressive path is the way to go.
the thing to remember is: it’s perfectly fine to be uncomfortable with some things–this is a normal part of existing in spaces with other people and it’s important to set boundaries for yourself. but in general it’s also not necessarily someone else’s problem to tailor their online existence to your discomfort.[1] it’s good if they respect your wishes of course, and especially if you’re close with them it’s probably worthwhile to see if they’ll respect some of the ones you have. but with exceptions for the most heinous content it is mostly going to be/should be incumbent on you–at least as possible with the tools at your disposal–to curate your online experience so that you’re not exposed to that stuff.
this is especially true in what are essentially public spaces like Twitter, rather than smaller and more tailored communities ↩︎
I don’t really like this article. It falls into the trap of conflating the vocal minority of people who complain about things as silly as fan pairings with slight age differences and heights with people who don’t like pedophilia being romanticised and sexualised. It strawmans anyone who may disagree with the article as not being able to seperate fiction from reality. The truth is its far more nuanced and we know from things like propaganda and the jaws effect that how real life topics are portrayed in fiction affects real peoples opinions on them. It also conflates the vague boogey man of ‘antis’ with all sex negative people which are different issues. The article seems very careful to refuse to outright mention the actual things “antis” typically take issue with. Which is nsfw art and writing of child characters specifically designed to titilate the consumer rather than make any statement of condemnation.
Basically the article seems more like a very biased hit piece than anything trying to open up a real discussion.
I wish I could give you a 100 upvotes. This is very true and twitter has only made it worse.
AI-summary:
The internet has become increasingly puritanical, with outspoken anti-sex advocates on social media criticizing and labeling various forms of sexual content as immoral. This trend has been particularly prominent in online fandom communities, where discussions about sexual content in media have given rise to a movement known as “anti-fandom.” The passage of the FOSTA-SESTA bill in 2018, which cracked down on online adult content, has further fueled this puritanical shift. Fandom, once a space for passionate celebration and creative expression, has become a battleground for purity culture, with individuals labeling certain ships and sexualized content as harmful and even equating fictional harm with real-world harm. This puritanical mindset has extended beyond fandom communities, affecting broader online discourse and leading to the censorship of sexual minorities and sex-positive content. The weaponization of social justice language, the rise of “call-out culture,” and the moral panic surrounding sex have all contributed to this puritanical trend, making it increasingly difficult to have open and healthy discussions about sex.
fun fact, google-ai couldn’t fit the article in its input text-box, and then said “im a language model and dont have the capacity to help with that” 🥶🥶 goog doesn’t know what a text-input is
