←back to thread

Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online

(ellsberg.substack.com)
693 points macawfish | 2 comments | 12 Jul 25 18:14 UTC | HN request time: 0.41s | source
Show context
frumplestlatz ◴[13 Jul 25 06:03 UTC] No.44547889[source]▶
I’m a porn abolitionist, and I still hate these laws. Requiring digital identification online is an incredibly chilling step. It is a direct assault on anonymity.
replies(2): >>44548416 #>>44549231 #
1. Hnrobert42 ◴[13 Jul 25 10:39 UTC] No.44549231[source]▶
Wow. Porn abolitionist. That's a fascinating position. One I can't begin to fathom, so it's very interesting.
replies(1): >>44554946 #
2. frumplestlatz ◴[14 Jul 25 00:01 UTC] No.44554946[source]▶
To be clear, my view is not one rooted in moral judgment, and certainly not directed at sex workers.

Rather, it’s grounded in trauma ethics. The statistical prevalence of CSA amongst sex workers is incredibly high — nearly universal.

Sex work itself is quite often a form of trauma reenactment, and the degree to which they engage in disassociation in order to perform is staggering.

I believe that in a very real and ethical sense, pornography and other forms of sex work entails the commodification of disassociation, and the consumption of maladaptive trauma responses rooted in CSA.

In effect, it amounts to taking pleasure in the psychological aftershocks of abuse.

I’m not convinced that porn abolition is even possible, but that it is important to be honest about the ethical fault almost universally implicit in sex work.