258
Twitch allowing more nudity after disproportionately banning female streamers | Twitch confirmed its policy banning nudity was sexist. (arstechnica.com)
submitted 2 years ago by [M, B] to c/technology@lemmy.world
118 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Twitch allowing more nudity after disproportionately banning female streamers | Twitch confirmed its policy banning nudity was sexist.::Twitch confirmed its policy banning nudity was sexist.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child)

I’m all about changing opinions, if you have any data that supports breasts not being viewed sexually at puberty due to societal structure, I’m all ears.

It’s dangerous to let these massive corporations play scientist with society if you ask me. A better method is to reinforce it via parenting. You’re fighting an uphill battle when all of the policies enacted simply get parental controlled away.

On another note, humans are the only mammals with enlarged breast before any egg has been fertilized. We’ve evolved to show them off for some reason, and that points to deeper biological underpinnings than purely society. It is entirely possible that you won’t be able to free breast without unavoidable consequences that won’t improve.

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

    It's possible, sure, but nobody's playing scientist. There are plenty of people around the world that allow exposed breasts and still function. There is no epidemic of sexual deviancy from exposed breasts in any of those societies. France can have nude beaches where woman are free to walk around topless and there aren't scores of men hiding in the bushes. You're acting like this is all hypothetical, but we already know what society looks like without a meaningless ban on exposed breasts - it just doesn't fit your narrative.

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

    And another personal attack on “my narrative”. This statement reveals more about you than me.

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

    You're saying we don't know what such a change will cause - that's called a narrative. Not a good or a bad thing - just the opinion you've chosen to defend. The bad thing is when the arguments you use to defend it don't hold up to scrutiny.

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

    I’m not really arguing one way or the other yet. I’m leaning towards status quo with a safe transition as we learn the effects. I really don’t have a dog in this fight, I just don’t think rushing in is advised without more micro examples and observation.

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

    I don't have a dog in the fight either, but what difference does that make? I'm a human with compassion for other humans - I care as much about their issues as I care about my own, and I don't want them to be tied down by prohibitions that don't make sense. A change can always be undone if found to be problematic; the apathy toward change is what really needs to be overcome.

    Every generation looks at the next one and thinks it's weird and inferior - humans as a whole tend to believe their own experiences are the best, most logical way of doing things, which is something we need to keep in mind; the status quo is almost certainly not currently optimal, and we should be looking for ways to change it even as our own preferences nag at us to keep it the same.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent