612
I need Rule (lemmy.blahaj.zone)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone
336 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 27 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Curiosity took me so I checked it out. I just see petite adult women? Literally every single post has 18 USC 2257 compliant age verification in the main body and it's listed as a rule on the sidebar that it must be included.

I'm all for a fuck literally any child fetishization. But they seem to be very clearly ensuring that there's no children. you can't seriously be saying that any adult female with a petite body should be seen as shameful and equated to a child?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago*

    I believe their problem is the fact the entire concept of the community is adults-who-could-be-mistaken-as-teens. That's the idea I'm getting from the name. It's fair for that to cross a line. I think its a super gross concept, and people are allowed to agree or disagree with that viewpoint.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Said women have every right to do whatever, including doing SW. This is not an individual problem.

    The problematic part is people actively searching out and forming communities around pron with women looking as close to a kid as possible. Condemning those guys has absolutely nothing to do with the people in the content and in no way shames them.

    It ain't the women at fault, nor the content inherently, it's the context and people fetishizing them in a way they prolly would't be comfortable with in the first place.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Browsing through the comments a bit, I don't really see them fetishizing it as even close to children. They just happened to be into petite women, the smaller the better. On the opposite extreme is stuff like the BBW fetish people who want the woman to be as large as possible.

    There are definitely people out there who are probably looking at them just because it's as close as they can legally get to teen, but I'm not really seeing much of that in that particular community at least not out in the open. It's definitely possible to be interested in extremely petite bodies without it having literally anything whatsoever to do with any potential similarities to underage women.

    If I had to guess it's probably mostly just people who like being in control, the idea of an adult partner who is so small that you can literally pick them up with ease and use them like a toy. I found a decent number of comments that seems to be on that sort of track.

    From what I can see of the age verification almost all of these women have been involved in some form of pornography even just magazine or video so I doubt that they are particularly uncomfortable about being looked at it's actually. There's always going to be creeps who think about you and weird ways in that industry it's not something you go into not knowing that.

    Now I'm not trying to be too overly defensive of this particular community, just trying to remind people to not get overly banhammer happy. That's how Echo Chambers start to form

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    This could be true, but looks unlikely bcs

    1. The name of the forum - it is not petite women or whatever, it's literally 'fauxbait'
    2. A below comment from Doctorcrimson who seem to have gotten a very different impression than you from the same community

    Do explain how banning porn groups forms echochambers tho, never heard that one before

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    Not specifically porn groups, I said not to be too banhammer happy. They were basically accused of being borderline pedophiles so everyone should block them. But I just can't see any evidence of that, it's literally the main sidebar rule that age verification is required and it's in every post I looked at as the rules required. And I didn't see anyone doing anything other than the usual creepy comments about how they want to fuck her that you will see on literally any porn forum.

    That sort of jump to conclusions ban first mentality is what starts to lead to Echo chambers. Not from Banning porn specifically but just the mindset of ban first don't verify

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    News to me, when I took up a stance over there in the form of a comment the other day people barraged my inbox for two days and never mentioned any sort of age verification measures, now I'm blocked. I hope they get audited regularly.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    196 has always been fascinating to me, I've gotten barraged on the old subreddit before for being anti lolicon and a lot of dubious comments borderline defending creepy stuff get a lot of tracktion sometimes - only served to make me more aggressive on the topic which is prolly a good thing for me.

    I get we're a bunch of kinky queers and people are thus quick to get defensive about any percieved policing of sexuality, but there are some things that make me feel like some people here have alterior motives and there's people who haven't really thought about ethics in relation to pornographic content that buy into the former group's narrative a little too quickly.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent