How Do You Feel About Steemit's First Playmate?
If you follow @sean-king, you've seen some interesting discussions about the role female sexuality (and porn) plays in empowering women.
His first post on the topic is here: https://steemit.com/steem/@sean-king/thoughts-on-women-oppression-and-porn
With a reply from @veralynn here: https://steemit.com/steem/@veralynn/is-this-empowerment-or-objectification
Followed by @sean-king's reply here: https://steemit.com/sex/@sean-king/more-thoughts-on-women-oppression-and-porn
With even more thoughts here: https://steemit.com/sex/@sean-king/sexual-click-bait
Edit: And a new reply from @veralynn just moments ago: https://steemit.com/steemit/@veralynn/re-sexual-clickbait
I'm curious how this conversation will change now that we have our first Playboy Playmate. I've seen many comments over the past month or so along the lines of "Wait until the porn industry gets involved in this. They'll take it over."
When I asked @corinnestokes last night, "Did you see a playmate joined up?" she kind of sighed and let out a reluctant, "Yeah..." I don't think she's too happy about it, and given the conversations I've seen already, I imagine she's not alone. You can read all about my changes in religious beliefs, so for me this is no longer a religious-based moral discussion. For most of my life, I would think this is 'bad' because of how I was raised. Now, I'm more surprised people get morally outraged about sexuality while celebrating murderous politicians. I think many people just don't understand the origins of their own moral framework.
From an NAP (non-aggression principle) perspective, a picture of a political who has used their power to kill other human beings should be way more offensive than a beautiful human body.
Does that mean I support porn?
Not so fast. The objectification of women is a real thing. I agree with much of Sean's conclusions, but I also think there are very real, systemic power dynamics at play which have put women at a disadvantage for much of human history. The pornography industry creates ridiculous expectations and distorts (from what little I've seen of it) the female role in sexual pleasure. Some women are fine with how they are portrayed, while I'd argue most are not. There are movements to create feminist, sex-positive porn which are interesting, but still not something I'm personally going to explore right now for a few reasons:
- It currently offends my wife.
- My wife is the source of my sexual pleasure, and I am the source of hers.
- The real thing, with real expectations and real intimacy, makes everything else seem cheap.
Even if our cultural norms radically change, and we start accepting sex more than we currently accept war and violence, we still have to consider the role of our motivations. If sex is coerced or even incentivized via financial rewards, does it fundamentally change the nature of the interaction? I think it does, and not for the better. Loving intimacy is sacred and should be celebrated voluntarily. When we distort these basic desires, we get perversions like sex-trafficking, exploitation, and objectification.
Most humans desire intimacy, love, and sex. Whether or not we should facilitate a marketplace to meet these physical needs directly (or at least indirectly through porn), might be another topic for discussion. The role this platform plays in facilitating or censoring that discussion is yet to be seen.
What do you think about the porn industry and human sexuality in general?
Do you think having a playmate here is a good thing or a bad thing and why?
How will you use your vote to curate future content here?
If the past is any indication, new technologies are often powered by our desire for sex.
In summary:
As long as an NSFW filter is implemented, prominent, and aggressively enforced by the community, the platform can support.
How individuals behave has to be up to them within the confines of the downvote/upvote structure at existing laws for their jurisdiction.
I think there's a been a lot of confusion regarding "downvote" verses "flag" because of the change made there. I joined just over a month ago, so it's always been a "downvote" for me. The reputation system adds another layer to the game theory as well. Recently I saw a comment downvoted because the author was being kind of a jerk. I replied suggesting an alternative approach, but then realized I probably should also downvoted also because (IMO) the person's reputation score was too high to be leaving comments like that. I didn't though... I also don't want a censorship mentality on a decentralized platform which is all about the lack of censorship.
I flagged a pornographic comment this morning which got me thinking the comments need a "not safe for work" checkbox or something. Actually, the main post editor could benefit from that as well.
It's going to be interesting to see how this community evolves as it grows and how the early seeds of growth impact the larger perceptions of the system for every day people deciding whether or not to join.
I get where you're coming from here, but I will respectfully suggest that you are missing a key point. I know from prior interactions that you understand the evils of coercion, and the horrible side effects of, for instance, outlawing drugs. Outlawing drugs creates a criminal subculture that goes well beyond just drug dealing itself. It enables and encourages all sorts of illegal activity--theft, murder, etc.
In a similar manner, banning prostitution or porn (whether legally or through shaming) does the exact same thing. "Sex-Trafficking, exploitation and objectification" of women, which you are very right to be concerned about, result not from sexually empowering women, but from sexually disempowering them through laws, through shame, through religious scruples, etc.. These things are a direct result of such bans like the crime associated with drugs are a direct result of those bans.
It's not favoring "loving intimacy" that will protect women in the long run. We've tried that approach for centuries, about as long as we've warred against drugs. Even the most fundamental Muslims who insist that women wear burkas insist that they do it to promote "loving intimacy" and to protect the "honor" of women.
Rather, its the marketplace the that will protect them. It's letting them own for themselves, and exploit however they see fit, that which is most them--their own physical bodies, including their sex appeal. Any attempt to limit that, or to restrict it's expression to certain socially or legally approved instances, will produce the very things that concern you--sex-trafficking, exploitation and objectification.
Steemit is uniquely positioned to facilitate this empowerment. On Steemit, women can "own" their own blog and control what goes on it. There's no need for them to work through male-owned and controlled intermediaries (like Facebook), or to associate with "pimps" to market and "protect" them. They are in complete control, and mostly free from male coercion (though, unfortunately, not necessarily attempted shaming).
Thanks for your comment, Sean! Yes, I should have clarified, I wouldn't support laws preventing individuals from owning their own bodies. I can't support victimless crimes either. Heck, there are very few "laws" (as the legal system exist today) that I would support as every law is backed ultimately by the threat of death and imprisonment. What we see here on Steemit, thankfully, is outside of the "legal" system and doesn't involve coercion.
As for prostitution, it does seem to be run mostly by male pimps and, some argue, leads to more human trafficking as demand shifts and changes between areas which legalize it and those that don't. I'm hoping my friend @schujahn will jump in with his thoughts, as he's looked into this stuff quite a bit.
That's a really good point. I think you and I both agree fundamentalist, dogmatic views aren't very helpful for increasing human well-being. The anarcho-capitalist, voluntaryist side of me really wants to believe the market can solve all problems, including sex and gender discrimination. I'm also open to that being a too simplistic view though.
It would seem you are rather conflicted!
You've already commented on how my "anarcho-capitalist, voluntaryist side" surprises you because I'm interested in some ideas from people like Noam Chomsky. I don't take as much of a dogmatic view as many others who throw that label around. Also, importantly, the various flavors of anarchy don't advocate or lead to aggression and violence while most "fundamentalist, dogmatic views" do.
@bacchist: not sure if you'll see this reply, but I get where you're coming from. I was just discussing this with @brettflorio today, actually. To me, I think it's clear how free markets and economic freedom increase human well-being. I view things from Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and it's when we get near the top that we even consider our role in fixing social problems, IMO. People can't even talk about this stuff if they are scraping to get by for their basic needs. I see the abundance created by functioning markets as lifting humanity out of poverty so they can actually tackle social problems in the first place.
That's an extreme view, IMO, but I'll look into "market fundamentalism" and see how much of that dogma I might be influenced by without realizing it.
The idea that the market will supply a solution for social problems is dogmatic. There's no evidence that it has or ever will. Wikipedia says that the term "market fundamentalism" is a pejorative, so I avoided using it... but I think embedded in the term is a cogent critique. My intent was not to offend you or insult you, though. I just found it interesting to find those two statements in such close proximity.
Steemit needs A LOT more diversification, and if gorgeous women are the first step, I can live with that. I have nothing but love for playmates, and everyone else in the adult entertainment world. I judge people by the content of their character, so I'm really hoping based hottie and mens rights activist Mercedes Carrera joins Steemit ASAP. Das jus me tho.
Well said, @condra!
Cheers :)
Without getting into the broader questions you bring up regarding the role of porn and the commodification of sexuality, I want to express my lack of enthusiasm for Steemit's First Playmate.
I am not happy with the reward that dwarfs many more substantial contributions. I don't find that the content offers any value to the platform. I don't have any particular reason to believe that this person is going to be an effective advocate for Steem and help the platform grow.
I have not been among the crowd complaining about attractive women being well rewarded. In fact I've spoken in support of some of the women who have brought something to the table in addition to their sex appeal and those who have leveraged their sex appeal to benefit the community.
Having some number of fans on other social media sites is a possible avenue for promotion, yet in this case I doubt it is particularly useful. I have witnessed the quality of the engagement that can be found on fan pages for models and actresses, and that would have little to offer us here. I don't think it would be a smart way to grow the platform to reach out to social media users who are primarily interested in titillation and idle talk...
I'd like to see a little more strategic thinking involved in some of the choices that are made to promote content to the front page.
Like your article! Heres my post about it just 4 hrs after she posted she was already at 6,000.00!
https://steemit.com/steemgirls/@karenmckersie/steemit-welcomes-playmate-brenda-zambrano-with-open-arms-and-now-over-10-000-00usdusd-414-upvotes-and-climbing-how-do-you-feel
You can't see how someone with 1 MILLION FOLLOWERS can help grow Steemit? Surely you jest. The fact that she's a playmate is tangential. It's her followers that interest us most.
I see how it can, but I'm not optimistic that it will. Happy to be wrong here, though. I'll happily eat crow if there is any measurable benefit from this.
Thanks @bacchist! Check out @blakemiles84's thoughts on the subject, which he posted right as I posted this. I wonder too about the impact of various personality types on the long term brand of the the platform, especially this early in the game. Part of me thinks all attention is good attention since the ultimate goal is to be a large social media platform for anyone to enjoy. As to the quality of the conversations to come, time will tell. Maybe the incentives here could change this "idle talk" to something more meaningful.
You make good points, for sure. I'm just skeptical that it is going to be beneficial. Only time will tell, I suppose.
Connections outside social media matter too. Did you catch the comment in the Jeff Berwick interview with Dan and Ned that he knows Brenda and they have appeared on the same TV show?
Who else does she know? People with a million followers know other people with a million followers, or are only one-degree separated. Think this through.
Personally my impression is that the developers will generally oppose pornography showing up in the main feeds by sorting out appropriate tags and downvoting mis-tagged posts. I can definitely see alternative UI's popping up for a whole range of different "interest groups". It's only a matter of time before someone builds a sleek UI at steemy.xxx, or something like that, since the Steem protocol effectively provides a seamless way to both identify 'good' content, while rewarding it at the same time. However I still have the impression that it will generally be shepherded to a back corner of steemit.com, especially because we're trying to still establish the integrity of the platform.
I agree, plenty of new "skins" (as I like to call them) for the blockchain will emerge. My biggest concern is that some illegal content will get stuffed into the blockchain which is distributed on so many different computers. Will the authorities have a justification to raid those computers?
Totaly agree, the problem is i dont know if its possible to escape from it. I mean how does one draw the line and makes sure it doesnt exist. I mean is there pornography on facebook?
I hope you're right on that. I'm not at all anti-porn, I just would prefer if it could stick to the half of the internet which it already occupies...
I mean it was your typical show some tits and get some likes kind of post. She could get that attention on any other social media platform. I think it did not deserve the amount of money it made. i have seen much more valuable posts that do not even get noticed. i think the wrong things are getting popular on here. The site is slowly getting away from it's purpose. The main things on steemit are only things that do with steemit, not adventures, stories, etc.. You think that having a porn model get a bunch of upvotes will help steemit? I seriously doubt even 1/40 of her followers will take the time to join a site involving crypto currency. IMO
Dude, you don't have 200k Twitter followers and 1.4 million Facebook followers like she does. If you did, I assure you that your posts would get upvoted more.
But you do recognize that's a subjective opinion, right? "Value" is something the community is still defining, especially the whales. From their perspective, promoting anyone with a large following is probably a good business decision. The more eyes on steemit, the better. As to the long-term influence of this specific post, it's hard to say. I know Steemit got my wife into crypto after three years of me failing to do so. That gives me hope.
I just know how hard it is to convince people to try cryto currency and I don't feel like that post helped convince anyone.
#Photography convinced my wife. Each of us have our own niches we're interested in and many peoples' convictions are much different than yours or mine.
Dear User known as @lukestokes
Steemit has a BOT problem! Your Vote Counts... Maybe
https://steemit.com/steemit/@weenis/bots-steemit-s-first-community-based-decision-on-bots-your-vote-counts-to-be-or-not-to-be-details-inside
She's got amazing promoting skills or PR's....
https://www.facebook.com/BrendaZambranoC/posts/567130480143900
Steemit promotion post
58 Likes.... But, she has 1.435.013 Page Likes....
Objectification of women is a completely pointless debate, sexism is in our genes and that's how reproduction works (both male and female ones). Maybe in the future when making babies and having sex is completely out of the question. As long as we remain humans, everything we do we ultimately do in order to find a mate and reproduce, even if many choose not to do so in a rational manner. This is not racism which is based on prejudice and cultural ignorance.
I agree humans, on a basic level, are motivated by sexual desires (even if unconsciously). I also think, however, that we can and do build moral frameworks to improve our own well being which, in many ways, counter balance our more primitive impulses. We have concepts like the NAP which protect life and property. I think we have similar perspectives about sexuality and the role in plays in our power dynamics. I don't argue that we are fundamentally different than other animals, but I do think we have have a pretty high neuron count which has impacted our perspectives on this stuff as a social species.
You make a really good point about creating future humans. If sex is less important for that in the future, these dynamics will change significantly.
I knew it would only be a matter of time before this would eventually happen. But in this case it will be totally up to the community whether or not these posts get any support. Speaking as a 30 something y.o., male. I wouldn't want full blown hardcore porn to infiltrate the platform on any scale. We get bombarded with sex as it is already. I come to Steemit to read interesting new things and express intellectual views and opinions. If I want porn I'll visit a porn site.... And thats only for a minute or 2 anyway , LOL.. My advice Keep the porn Out!! Keep quality content in....
I think I agree with you. If pornographers want to get involved, I hope they fork the steemit.com codebase and build their own platform where everything is behind a nsfw tag and remains unseen by steemit.com.