99

37 comments

[–] Lunitabonita 72 points (+72|-0)

Porn is a human right, but being protected from rape is not? This is the world men create when they claim everything for themselves. It's pedophilia and violence all the way down.

[–] TerfSedai 50 points (+50|-0)

Ah yes, I love it when woke organizations substitute the word "workers" for slaves.

[–] pennygadget 21 points (+22|-1)

Ah yes, I love it when woke organizations substitute the word "workers" for slaves.

How long before American textbooks are altered so that Black slaves are called "field workers", "domestic workers", and/or "sex workers"?

[–] MiMi2013 17 points (+18|-1)

It's already considered improper to use the word "slave" (and the slave-owners didn't like the word either; they preferred "hands" or "our people", and other gentle euphemisms). Nowadays, you'll be berated for not using "enslaved person" instead of "slave". So I would bet money alterations have already been made to textbooks.

[–] Tnetennba 13 points (+14|-1) Edited

You also have to call the slave owners "enslavers". Including the white women who legally didn't own slaves, or anything at all. All her property, if she even had any, transferred to her husband at the time of marriage. So if she had a home that had been in her family for generations it would automatically belong to her husband, and if he divorced her he kept the house.

But I've repeatedly seen people wondering why white women didn't just set their slaves free...

[–] madderthanhell 8 points (+8|-0) Edited

Not wanting to stir up debate over this, but there are good reasons to use "enslaved person" rather than slave. A slave is an object. An enslaved person is a person whose liberty was taken by someone else.

EDIT: typo

[–] TerfSedai 7 points (+7|-0) Edited

Some textbooks have already have been using these terms! https://apnews.com/article/ce1eaa40c7504c9d8e772241f07d6965

Often other books will say "forced laborers" as an alternative to "slaves," which is not quite as bad as the examples you gave, but it still does not accurately convey the horrors of slavery.

ETA: I think it's critically important that we don't use gentle euphemisms to describe these sort of fact-based realities because such language occludes the absolute worst of humanity in vague, ineffable nuance. CALL IT WHAT IT IS. AND WHAT IT IS IS HUMAN SLAVERY.

[–] Samhain 7 points (+7|-0)

I was on a tour of a historical house in New England a couple of weeks ago where the tour guide used the phrase "unpaid workers." It took me a minute to realize he meant SLAVES and not, you know, college interns.

[–] Free_Metis 45 points (+45|-0)

No one should be calling porn "sex education". As UNICEF is an organization meant to protect children, this is horrifying.

[–] dasehe 36 points (+36|-0)

What the fuck. Since when is pornography a substitute for sex education?

[–] Free_Metis 20 points (+20|-0)

Just left the same comment at the same time. I would say jinx, but I'm not finding this very funny.

[–] dasehe 16 points (+16|-0)

Yeah, me neither. Content of sex ed class is one thing, but I'm struggling to see how this is supposed to make sense.

[–] pennygadget 17 points (+17|-0)

What the fuck. Since when is pornography a substitute for sex education?

Porn is so unrealistic and gross that its worse than no sex ed at all! It does nothing to teach kids about pregnancy, safe sex, consent, anatomy, etc

[–] worried19 3 points (+3|-0)

Well, it educates the girls about their sexual role under patriarchy. Trains them to be good, uncomplaining victims.

It won’t be long before they say school is not for all kids and infringes their human rights and they should be allowed to skip school and get a job which will give them vital “life experience”. Then we’ll be back where we were over a century ago, child brides, child workers and women with no rights. Welcome to the 21st century where we’re so progressive we can turn back time to the 19th century.

[–] shewolfoffrance 27 points (+27|-0)

This reminds me of Jeffrey Epstein. When he and his rich friends weren't abusing trafficked girls, they enjoyed doing "philanthropic" work. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Clinton Foundation are both massively influential NGOs. The rich and powerful can shape the world to their liking.

[–] pennygadget 18 points (+18|-0)

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Clinton Foundation are both massively influential NGOs.

Speaking of the Gates, rumor has it that Epstein shenanigans are part of the reason she wants a divorce

[–] shewolfoffrance 12 points (+12|-0)

Yeah. I never know how much to believe because both sides have high-priced, influential attorneys. It's definitely a bad look for Bill though.

[–] Lilim 25 points (+25|-0) Edited

This is fucking disgusting but not surprising considering so many humanitarian groups wind up with rapists and pedophiles among their ranks because unfettered access to vulnerable women and children.

[–] Chopu [OP] 16 points (+16|-0)
[–] vitunrotta 15 points (+15|-0)

I read about that study, here are a few snippets:

Top-ranked digital sexuality education media worldwide accessed by children include websites, apps and YouTube vloggers, most of which are in the English language and based in the US.116 Some of this content may be classified as ‘pornography’ in certain contexts: if it were age restricted, this could deny children access to vital sexuality education materials.1

and

The 2020 EU Kids Online study compared survey findings from 19 European countries and found that in most countries, most children who saw sexual images online were neither upset nor happy (ranging from 27 per cent in Switzerland to 72 per cent in Lithuania); between 10 per cent and 4 per cent were fairly or very upset; and between 3 per cent of children (in Estonia) and 39 per cent (in Spain) reported feeling happy after seeing such images.1

I have questions about that EU Kids Online study.

Here is the survey: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339177682_EU_Kids_Online_2020_Survey_results_from_19_countries

51% of girls did in fact report they were upset after seeing sexual images.

[–] vitunrotta 6 points (+6|-0)

What the hell. So where did they get those percentages? Seems like they purposefully misrepresented the data.

[–] worried19 3 points (+3|-0)

No fucking surprise there. Poor girls. They're still young enough to be shocked and upset. Then they get to learn that this is all they're considered good for and what they're supposed to enjoy.

[–] worried19 3 points (+3|-0)

39 per cent (in Spain) reported feeling happy after seeing such images

What's going on with kids in Spain and why would they be so much "happier" than others?

[–] RawSienna 13 points (+13|-0)

Not another fucking cent from me. Their views are disturbing to say the least. In fact, they’re so disturbing I think they need to be investigated.

Load more (5 comments)