/h/redscarepod

13

/h/redscarepod

yesimawesome coomin/daily 30d ago (reddit.com) Edited 30d ago 128 thread views #279295

Some insane person on r/rspod writes what seems like hundreds of posts seething about Indians lol

4

Block /h/redscarepod

4

13

13

/h/redscarepod House Racist Founder

Maximus pee/pee r-slurred commentary 30d ago (reddit.com) 161 thread views #279198

The chuds & shitlibs of redscare reee over the jan 6 insurrection

5

Block /h/redscarepod

5

13

56

/h/redscarepod

Goku el/boku Poder Prohibido :marseygoku:

1mo ago (reddit.com) 596 thread views #279071

RSP once again projects their insanity onto everyone else

30

Block /h/redscarepod

30

56

https://old.reddit.com/r/redscarepod/comments/1dokmh5/an_honest_question_about_porn_ill_probably_regret/laanmdn/?context=8

:#marseylongpost:

It's objectification, fundamentally.

The whole concept of a "slut" is that it's a woman that isn't functionally a person. They're a commodity. There are obviously degrees to this — it isn't all obviously morally decrepit. If you visit a Hooters, you're probably not going to be dehumanizing the waiters 100% of the time. Probably also people can see a stripper still acknowledge her humanity to some extent. But there's a dark undercurrent there, and you can't tell me that people cheer for Mardi Gras flashers for their personality. It's the very same behavior as catcalling, only "consensual."

Porn taps directly into this dark undercurrent. It's not, specifically, that you "pretend to have s*x with the woman." You get to pretend to have s*x with a woman. The distinction's important. You get to see a woman naked, and it's for your attention. She performs — or receives — the s*x acts you type into google. You can rewind, fast forward, open new tabs. In your own fantasies this effect is amplified: you can alter the woman, the man, scenario to your taste.

You get control.

A certain type of progressive person insists that some kinds of "slutiness" are empowering in some way. Whatever you think about those arguments, those arguments are made either in ignorance of, or at least in defiance to, the male point of view. I'm anti-sexwork because I think that it's practically impossible to exorcise (that's the right word!) the dark undercurrent from sexwork consumption. "Sluts" are not real — it doesn't matter what behavior a woman is engaged in, she is still inherently a person.

Part of it is marketing. Playboy painted itself as an artsy magazine for free thinkers. It had important articles, and it was empowered — and it was a human trafficking ring right from the start, even if it took a long time for everyone to acknowledge that. The same way no one acknowledges that there's the smutty tiktok livestreams starring South East Asian women, and the sketchy looking "dating ads" featuring Eastern European women, are fronts for human trafficking too.

Porn likes to pretend it is rebelling against those hypocritical moral busybodies who're probably watching porn themselves anyway. And of course, anti-porn people are often watching porn themselves. One of the problems with porn is that the majority of people are kind of complicit.

Famous porn actresses talk, at first, of how safe and comfortable they felt on set. How they make a lot of money, how their boundaries are very respected, how consensual every shoot is. They admit that it's not for everyone, and they certainly don't want their daughters doing it, but the actresses say they definitely don't regret it. Six years later, they open up and admit that their "costars" were popping pills between takes or were on heroin; they admit that there was one or two instances when she said stop and they didn't, and how it still messes her up. Times where she wasn't paid or times where she consented, but only after she'd argued against a scene for two hours. They sound the alarm and say what everyone already knows — porn production is a nightmare, and a majority of actors involved are severely abused.

They then start an OnlyFans. I guess it's what they know, and porn is addicting to the viewer and the actress alike. Of course, this seems to dilute the message, because the same kind of objectification is going on — although the lack of direct exploitation from producers is a definite plus... But porn is addicting, and the viewers latch on to any excuse to keep watching. Speaking for myself, I "get curious" — I have a "normal question", that just happens to lead me down smutty lines. Then suddenly I have ten tabs open, back to the old favorites.

But, anyway, I digress.

The kinds of porn you mention are just further downstream of the kind of objectification I mentioned. The marketing works overtime, convincing you that it's okay. And you're smart enough to know that somethings definitely wrong — but you've felt guilty since you started watching porn, and you were still a kid then. And porn use feels so ubiquitous, so... maybe you aren't so bad for watching?

The woman is more completely objectified, in those videos. You're pretending that it's okay to watch, but there's no pretending that she isn't being objectified. But it's... well, it's the same dark undercurrent that's under porn and sexwork and sluttiness as a whole. The same quasi-enjoyment that makes people addicted in the first place. Just more naked. "Look at that! She's being so used right now. And she likes it! What a slut!"

I was expecting to see some wild shit in this dude's post history but it's incredibly boring.

People are pretty accurately holding forth on the psychoanalytical ramifications of “gang bang” pornos, but I'd just like to add that it's mostly just another expression of the ever-lasting male cuck fetish, which is tied up in woman-hating. Men want to see women simultaneously punished for their promiscuity and attracted to that punishment. The underlying cause of this fetish is present in all men.

This one posts in /r/heraldry, /r/skyscrapers, /r/coins (so supremely neurodivergent) and /r/somalia

52