259
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2023
259 points (93.3% liked)
Technology
59598 readers
1993 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Sexism is an issue with gaming for sure but banning nudity is not sexism.
It is if women's nipples are nudity but men's nipples are not.
Why not have a "no nipples" policy in general? I'm guessing that if parents think that their 7 year olds are going on Twitch to see boobs, they could lose some viewers.
But yes, policies should be applied equally.
Because having a no nipples policy is a stupid way to live your life. Free your nipples.
I'd rather not show you my nipples.
Fine keep your secrets.
Something wrong with them huh?
This is not about women being free to go shirtless which is fair, this about eyeballs and ads. This lazy sex work. This corporate giants profiteering. This about that corporate giants maintaining brand image control. Reducing it to a slogan is missing the rest of the picture.
Free the nipple
I agree with you but this is more of a societal issue and not necessarily a Twitch issue. I think Twitch following the standards set by society was reasonable however them pushing to improve upon those is absolutely welcome.
I disagree. At one point in time it was society saying black people couldn't eat with white people and it was people and companies willing to push that boundary that changed this.
We are all members of society and it is on us to constantly push back against the unfair traditions in our community.
Did you just equate Jim Crow with not being able to see titties on a mainstream streaming site?
You know you can see titties on other streaming sites, right?
This is just a bad strawman. People want equality, not titties. Jim Crow is only used as a analogy to show that pushing back on inequalities is a good thing, and "we're just following societal standards" isn't a really good excuse.
Bad take in my opinion. It's quite clear the difference between the two in our society.
Wait a minute could our society be sexist?
Yeah, but that difference is specifically rooted in sexism and misogyny. The very fact that we can all see the difference that isn't much of a difference shows that there's a divide that needs to be bridged. We only think women's nipples are inappropriate because we were taught to. Plenty of cultures around the world don't see breasts as inappropriate, and they're doing just fine.
Yeah, but you're not going to stop people (generally) from getting horny when looking at breasts no matter how much you educate them. So idk what your goal is.
It's hard-wired.
No, it's not. People at nude beaches or at nudist colonies aren't walking around with erections all day. African communities where women don't wear tops don't have guys jerking off whenever they get a chance. The sexualization of breasts in our culture is a product of our association with breasts as a purely sexual object, and the viewing of them as a purely sexual act. The way that stops being a thing is by allowing them to exist in non-sexual contexts, and teaching a new generation that they are just like any other body part.
If a girl nonchalantly takes off her top while going about her day today, it will be viewed as a sexual thing, because anyone who sees will have only seen such an act in sexual contexts. If, for several years, women all around the US are empowered to nonchalantly take off their tops whenever feel like it, it will become a common, non-sexualized act, because it will be associated more with everyday life than with what people do behind closed doors.
Just out of curiosity, total non sequitur here:
Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?
Your "non-sequitur" is trying insinuate that a person's innate sexual orientation toward certain genders mirrors an innate sexual response to certain body parts, which I don't disagree with. I find women beautiful, and in the right circumstances, I have a sexual response to that beauty. The difference lies between simple attraction and horniness.
I'm attracted to a beautiful woman wearing clothes that compliment her beauty. Do I immediately get a hard on? No. Do I become unable to function as a result of seeing her? No. Whatever reaction I have toward her beauty is my own circumstance to handle - she is under no obligation to change herself based on my reaction. I'm attracted to her, but seeing women wearing well-fitting clothes is a normal part of my day, so I don't find it overtly sexual. It can become sexual if the woman starts flirting with me, for example, but just wearing nice clothes doesn't make me horny, because most women wear nice clothes simply because they want to.
I see my wife topless all the time, and while I think she's beautiful, I don't get horny at every sight of her, nor should I. Most of the time she just doesn't want to deal with putting a shirt on - she's not trying to turn me on, and I'm not getting tuned on. This is a normal example a woman comfortable with being topless in a non-sexual situation, and a man, used to seeing that woman topless, not having a strong reaction to it. This is how all men, regardless of sexual orientation, would see breasts if women were as comfortable not wearing a shirt around men as my wife is around me. If my wife were to start teasing me and trying to turn me on, I would start getting horny, because that's the appropriate time for a person to have a sexual response to another person's body.
How would she even tease you if her naked body doesn't get you going?
By using her body sexually. Are you really so unfamiliar with seeing people naked that you think it's the nakedness itself that's supposed to be sexual? Have you never seen the difference between a woman taking off her bra because it's stuffy and a woman taking off her bra because she wants sex? There's "Yup, it's her naked body." and then there's "Hell yeah, her naked body!" You just go ravenous any time your SO is naked around you, ever?
A horny teenage boy is a prime target for abuse. You may think it’s cultural, but you may also be wrong. Hormones are a helluva drug.
A horny teenage boy better learn to keep his hands to himself. I don't give a shit what he feels compelled to do, and neither should any woman who happened to set him off.
You have a story in your head you’ve answered a question to. It has nothing to do with my comment.
As do you, insinuating hormones making people want to do things is reason enough to expect them to do it. Society relies upon people having the self control to not behave based solely on the way their body tells them to, and instead to behave as society deems appropriate. People want to take things, to hurt others when they feel hurt, and to have sex with people they're attracted to, but for us to live together, people need to have control over that. If they don't, they need to be taught, and if society deems something inappropriate that shouldn't be, we need to change society to allow for that act.
I was simply pointing out that my comment had nothing to do with sexual assault. The abuse I speak of is professional prostitutes now being given access to young children who don’t yet necessarily have the capacity for adult reasoning. There are lonely kids at home with free time whose parents have to work more than they should have to. Lonely people, never mind children, seek out comfort in both healthy and unhealthy ways. It depends on what’s available to them.
The child psychiatrist in my family portrays the current state of adolescent research very succinctly: The only effective way we’ve found to curb “unwanted” behavior in children is to limit exposure. Past a certain point, a routine forms and they are no longer predisposed to observed behaviors. In effect, people make their own choices. If you put good choices in front of them, they take them. If you put a mix, they take the good with the bad.
You put breasts on twitch, you’re going to have more people searching for breasts. Forcing a change isn’t going to fix the underlying societal structure that formed around nudity. You’re just going to mess up a lot of kids with your misdirected efforts.
Jesus, dude - my whole point is that exposed breasts shouldn't be equated to porn, and the fact that they are is only a stronger reason to allow them to be free right now, to undo that association as soon as possible. A woman choosing to go out to get her mail without a top on shouldn't be equated to a peep show. A woman choosing to play video games on twitch without a bra shouldn't be equated to a strip show. Yes, the current generation of kids will view it as porn, because they haven't seen it outside of porn, which they have already seen, no doubt. It was so easily accessible on the internet that I'd seen my fair share of it before I was out of elementary school in 2002, and it's only gotten even more prevalent. It's an issue, sure, but to let it be the reason not to allow something that shouldn't be equated to porn in the first place is ridiculous.
If breasts are allowed freely in public spaces, it won't be very long before they stop attracting horny boys any more than well-fitting clothing already does. Again, the effect that breasts currently have on boys is already too much - they shouldn't be making men salivate by simply being exposed - they're just breasts, and those in other cultures that have breasts exposed on a regular basis don't have that issue.
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.
That doesn't mean society isn't sexist. There's lots of bullshit society is sexist about like how men can't be loving and affectionate parents.
Or how you can mutilate male sexual organs for profit but can't do so to female sexual organs
Society also says a kilt and a plaid skirt are two different things. Yet my Scottish roommate wore a plaid skirt from Zara to a party and no one batted an eye.
Free the balls, man.
I would rather not see any nudity on my gaming streams...